I go d5 to make a countergambit; pretty interesting and wrecks the KG player's plans :)
I encounter this frequently: I always take this pawn immediately via 3. exd5 then when 3. ... Qxd5 4. Nc3 I keep the pressure on and continue with even more momentum!
It has foiled my plans a few times, but I've learned to defend against it - basically take the pawn right away!
normally i'd play 2...Qf6, but heck, i'd happily play Qh4+ as well. doesnt seem too bad to me.
I'd happily have you play 2. ... Qh4+ in the KG opening ! In fact, it a certain someone (see prior posts on this thread) will meet my challenge, I may be able to demonstrate precisely what I mean...
Unless he would like to concede the point and resign in advance... ?
Tarius I'll play you a CC game from Qh4+ but it's important to me that you concede the following point:
Our match, and it's result, would prove nothing about chess. If you want to prove that Qh4+ is so fatally flawed you can beat anyone with it (which is the absurdity you stated, calling Qh4+ as unplayable as fool's mate), set-up the position and let Fritz, or Rybka, or even Chessmaster play from Qh4+ -- you beat one of them, publish your result and I'll consider Qh4+ effectively 'refuted.' I'll certainly accord your analysis a great deal more weight than I currently do.
Me beating you at chess, or you beating me at chess, proves nothing about chess because we aren't good enough at chess to prove things about chess with our chess games. I really want to hear you say that, because it seems to me you actually think your games mean something.
I refuse to play a game based on the absurd premise that You vs. Me constitutes any sort of "demonstration" of anything, except possibly your overestimation of the worth of your chess games.
Frankly, the chest-beating "when I win it makes me right" stuff strikes me as childish.
Every game matters - unless blunders are made, you can learn something from every game... Are you planning on 'throwing' the game?! Play your best! I know I will try to.. We're mostly interested in the first 12-15 moves anyways, so how hard can it be to play proper chess for a dozenish moves?
When did I say anything about 'proving' anything? As any educated person knows, such a demonstration bout as our match would consitute evidence, not proof of the hypothesis, which in this case is that 2. ... Qh4+ deserves ?! .
You have enough litterature and examples, and apparently enough presumption and self-assuredness at your disposal, so use them! No excuses.
Every game 'tests' prospectives lines of play, since every player, no matter their skill level or experience, are bound by the same rules of play and so have all the same options available. And I can't speak for everyone, but isn't the whole point of playing so much chess because we do find value/worth in our games?
JG27Ptyh - if you find no value in chess, then why play, and why talk about it here even?..
So is that a yes, or a no? (If yes, I propose online/slow game so that you have time to analyse the positions and search for the best line of play)
BTW - I don't use chess programs. I consider myself an 'organic' chess player. I'll study games played between humans and programs, but I'm not the kind of person who keeps plugging in every little situation into Chess programs to get a cold edge in a given game. If that's what you mean by adding 'value' then I guess I'm playing 'poor-man's chess' . I'll play the computer now and then for fun, but that's it. But that is the topic for another thread...
Looks like ...Qh4+ is playable. It says that white is better by 0.01... however, when white plays f4, after ...exf4 it gives about -0.60. It's one of those inferior moves played by masters because they know what they're doing. I doubt any amateur would play at all as black like that master game you showed with ...Qh4+. It's pretty complex move, actually. It seems as if white gets a central and development advantage, but he had to compromise his king position and he may have to play Bg2 to avoid huge weaknesses, when it's preferred on c4.
tarius78 - I'll play you if you want to try out that line provided you stop being so aggressive and listen to what others are saying as well as posting comments.
Challenge me and we'll give it a go.
Sure JonnyJupiter, we might as well... I'm always game! BTW- I have been listening to what others say, it's just that I often have to defend my view-point due to snarky remarks or demeaning responses. That's why you might get the impression that I'm rather agressive, which may be true, but I'm not abraissive! In any case, shall we?
Would you rather live or online/slow style?
24. ... Bxc6 25. Qc4 Kb8 26.d5 Bxd5 27.Qxd5 Rd8
Things look a little more even.
the king's gambit is technically unsound, not that it loses but white is supposed to be at a slight disadvantage instead of the traditional slight advantage. The most important thing for black is to know and understand at least most of the theory. That's how you combat all dangerous openings. If you know very little about it, unless you're very strong you will have a very dangerous game and it's very likely you'll fall into a trap by just playing a natural move. Moves like these also lead to wild games in themselves, so even if you've been following the theory there is still some room for error.
I play the KG a lot as white and I disagree with your analysis of it being technically unsound? What do you mean? Spassky beat Fischer with the KG. After Fischer's article "A bust to the KG"...it was rarely seen in tournament conditions, but it is a valid opening all around and plenty good for anyone under 2700. Really the only poor aspect of it is that it gives black equality to quickly as where other openings as white hold on to the theoretical advantage longer. I find especially for players under 2000 it is a perfect opening because of the tactical possibilities and soundness.
I would certainly agree, of course. But then I'm also biased :)
One of my continued investigations is why exactly have so many been scared off of using the KG when to me it seems like THE BEST opening. Not that I master it or wield it correctly always, but I do see and sense the potential of it. It feels like it has the potential to take Full advantage of ANY response black has, if only we know the proper continuation in each case... That would mean fully capitalizing on all the smallest advantages, relative piece value from position to position, tempo considerations/gains (to a great degree!), and a constant eye out for a devastating combination play, which abound in the KG games... A daunting task, but I feel it's possible...
Anyways, glad to hear that others enjoy it as well as I do.
Sure JonnyJupiter, we might as well... I'm always game! BTW- I have been listening to what others say, it's just that I often have to defend my view-point due to snarky remarks or demeaning responses. That's why you might get the impression that I'm rather agressive, which may be true, but I'm not abraissive! In any case, shall we?
Would you rather live or online/slow style?
Online 3-days per move is best for giving openings a decent analysis.
One of my continued investigations is why exactly have so many been scared off of using the KG when to me it seems like THE BEST opening. Not that I master it or wield it correctly always, but I do see and sense the potential of it. It feels like it has the potential to take Full advantage of ANY response black has, if only we know the proper continuation in each case... That would mean fully capitalizing on all the smallest advantages, relative piece value from position to position, tempo considerations/gains (to a great degree!), and a constant eye out for a devastating combination play, which abound in the KG games... A daunting task, but I feel it's possible...
I get excited about slightly offbeat openings too - this is why I've started playing Bird's Opening (1.f4). I think it's easier to become very attached to these openings because people sometimes put them down without further investigation or because they've heard someone say they aren't the soundest, so we feel that we need to champion the opening and it becomes part of our chess playing identity. Even so, it would be unwise to try to argue the other side - to say that they are better than the more common openings.
Any argument about which opening is 'the best' is always very subjective - we generally mean "this opening is the best for me because it suits my style". John Watson hit the nail on the head when he said that any opening in common use by masters is generally sound if played correctly. Some might give white or black a slight edge, but it's all about knowing the strategy behind the opening and choosing moves to suit this strategy.
Good comment and thoughts. Actually, funny that you mention BIrd, since I have just posted a great recent game of mine where I use Bird's Defence against the Ruy. It's actually quite a nice one - check it out!
Up to move 17 black is still very much in the game. If he then plays pawn to f5 he will protect his g pawn, prevent the white rook coming to f6 and has an interesting attack on the white king. Conversely white still has a queen's knight and rook that are not yet in the game. At this point I would on balance rather play black, even though white has a passed pawn, a good attack on d5 and at some stage in the future can move his b pawn to b5. In other words this line does not prove one way or the other the advisability of black bringing out his queen so early.
the king's gambit is technically unsound, not that it loses but white is supposed to be at a slight disadvantage instead of the traditional slight advantage. The most important thing for black is to know and understand at least most of the theory. That's how you combat all dangerous openings. If you know very little about it, unless you're very strong you will have a very dangerous game and it's very likely you'll fall into a trap by just playing a natural move. Moves like these also lead to wild games in themselves, so even if you've been following the theory there is still some room for error.
I play the KG a lot as white and I disagree with your analysis of it being technically unsound? What do you mean? Spassky beat Fischer with the KG. After Fischer's article "A bust to the KG"...it was rarely seen in tournament conditions, but it is a valid opening all around and plenty good for anyone under 2700. Really the only poor aspect of it is that it gives black equality to quickly as where other openings as white hold on to the theoretical advantage longer. I find especially for players under 2000 it is a perfect opening because of the tactical possibilities and soundness.
I tried to say it in a way so that people don't think I think it's horrible, which you did think. So what I mean by unsound is that it gives black the advantage with correct play, in fact by over -0.50. You can say all you want about how people can make mistakes and how spassky beat fischer with it, but that doesn't make it sound. Maybe unsound is a bit harsh maybe I should say incorrect but analyse it on a computer and it will say about -0.50 (and don't distrust the computer. it knows that the pawn isn't everything, otherwise it would be about -1.00. As it goes on, the analysis remains the same.). Also, it only wins 50 50 and that's only happening because the king's gambit is a sharp opening with alot of mistakes. As black, studying the theory will serve you very well and hopefully come out with an advantage. He can let white have all the fun but he won't be so happy if he loses and completely loses his attack. The king's gambit is very reckless because although he can get attacking chances himself, his king is also loosened so he may have to deal with a black counterattack.
So... what's my point? Well, basically the king's gambit is an opening where you hope your opponent makes a mistake, otherwise you're at a disadvantage. It's pretty much a gamble that your opponent won't know the "semi refutation" (giving black an advantage, which can't be good). There really are some sound gambits played today though.
Tonydal - I'm honestly dissapointed in you. You have your opinions of me, and that's fine. But the fact that you are just out to try and demean and discourage and basically slander me (no matter how eloquently you try to sound) is far beneath the kind of person I thought you were.
I'm not going to honor the little stabs you took at me by addressing them one by one, except for one point. At no point, in any way shape or form, have I ever claimed to be a 'genius' or anything close to it. In fact, I've often humbled myself to ensure that no one got that impression. Evidently, not enough. All I have is a great enthusiasm and tremendous passion for chess! That's it. Discusssions can get heated, and yes, god forbid, I get excited by some of my wins/games - didn't realize that was 'against the rules' or against 'tonydal's personal guidelines on etiquette' ...
And another thing, I didn't know that JG27Pyth was rated so highly - I didn't even look. But at twice 1400 like you said, my word - isn't that basically Kasperov level?! What the hell is he doing on Chess.com then, or even talking to me at all then? I haven't, to this day, looked up his rating, because it doesn't matter. What we spoke of and having a little match to test out some approaches is what does. If you are so against it, that's your damage, and it's also tough. Who I choose to play, and who chooses to play whom is COMPLETELY none of your affair , Tonydal.
For such a highly rated player, you are lacking in class, I'll tell you that much!
(I suppose you'll feel a need to further attempt to denigrate me, and you know what, that's fine. It shall only expose what I've been getting at!)
Tartakower once said of the Latvian Gambit: "Dubious, therefore playable." Certainly the King's Gambit is worthy of even more respect.
Again, I'll repeat my point of a time-distant post: Top level GMs generally build a repertoire around lines that have diverse plans and uncertain evaluations (at least believed to be uncertain by other GMs). The King's Gambit generally doesn't afford those options.
However, one must never underestimate the power of an opening in the hands of one who knows it well, or at least better than one's opponent - that knowledge MORE than makes up for any computer estimated -0.5 pawn deficit conclusion.
Finally, for 99.99% of all players on the Earth, the game is about the process more than the outcome (this has been mentioned already in this thread but bears repeating). The process of playing the King's Gambit from the White side is most assuredly fun, even if the outcome is a paltry 50/50.
If you want to be theoretically sound because you're tied up in a knot about such a notion, play the Ruy Lopez or QG with White and the Sicilian or Semi-Slav with Black. If you want fun, play what you like. You'll be better with it and therefore score better, AND you'll have fun in the process.
Anyone for an Elephant's Gambit game?
There's nothing wrong with playing sound openings though. I like the Benoni and King's Indian and they are basically sound and have a sharp/ fun game. Also I just like the subtle ideas of the QG because you can turn one small advantage eventually into a large enough one to win. I just wouldn't like having to hope someone doesn't play well just for the game to be insane and give me good chances.You act as if there's something wrong with playing a sound opening. I win with these openings because you have nothing to lose and enough to gain. I would prefer to use openings like the king's gambit for less serious games and to improve my tactics but the game would not be taken so seriously as I'm not comfortable in those positions and therefore it would not reflect my true playing strength.
I go d5 to make a countergambit; pretty interesting and wrecks the KG player's plans :)