Ok, but I didn't say that White can't win with the King's Gambit. I said that White wins less often than with other openings; and that's true. I actually enjoyed a few of these games.
I have never played the King's Gambit as White. If you want to, then go ahead. Just don't expect it to work at the master levels.
Ok, but I didn't say that White can't win with the King's Gambit. I said that White wins less often than with other openings; and that's true. I actually enjoyed a few of these games.
I have never played the King's Gambit as White. If you want to, then go ahead. Just don't expect it to work at the master levels.
If you go to this site's Game Explorer and go to 1.e4 e5, you'll find that 2.Nf3 wins 42.7% of games, and 2.f4 wins 46.8%. If you take into account the draws, it's 56.5% vs 56.2% -- a difference, but hardly a substantial one. Other databases are similar. The King's Gambit and 2.Nf3 really score about the same, I'm sorry.
There are two things you can say about the king's gambit that are probably true: one, that it's not popular right now, and two, that extreme theory nerds can give some variations for Black in which White's best line leads to "unclear".
And that's all. For everyone who isn't a professional, it's just a matter of taste and following fashion.
One addition, and keep in mind that I also don't play the King's Gambit (I usually play 1.d4), and I haven't really researched it.
Personally I think the reason the King's Gambit isn't popular is because there are many different types of position that can come from it -- quiet endgames, ridiculously wild middle games, and everything in between. And worse, it's often _Black's choice_ which way it goes.
Playing the Ruy Lopez gives White more control over the type of game that's going to be played, and that's more important than getting a slightly better position in the extreme ends of theory. All good openings are eventually equal, after all.
Many professionals want to "play for two results", giving the opponent as little winning chances as possible. 2.f4 isn't the best way to achieve that.
I'm a 1600, I've played over 100 games and never played a king's gambit game.
Yes, but 1.d4 scores better than both of them! 
I don't know. I prefer using Black anyway. Plus, it really is just a matter of taste; as you say. I know that there are some GM's who regularly employ odd openings, and some who are so dogmatic that they never experiment with anything new! I guess I'm somewhere in between, because I like to experiment. But I'm sure about one thing: I will certainly not play a line that I don't know to have at least some chances of success. (Like 1.a4?! for example.
)
Playing the Ruy Lopez gives White more control over the type of game that's going to be played, and that's more important than getting a slightly better position in the extreme ends of theory.
No, it's the other way around.
To RainbowRising
This has been discussd on previous posts, but to make it short:
5.Bc4, Bh4+; 6.Kf1 is probably best. You expand in the center with d4 and continue developement with Nc3, Bxf4 (if possible), etc. Black will have to move his B at h4 (eventually), meaning he has moved the piece three times in the opening, and that's not really the best he can do in the KGA. If you are wondering what to do about the White K at f1, look at the games in the Bishop's Gambit: 1.e4, e5; 2.f4, exf4; 3.Bc4, Qh4+; 4.Kf1. The loss of castling is not that big a deal here, since Black will be forced to lose time with his Bishop. I hope this helps.
I'll take you up on the offer to play as black and make 2...Qh6+. The KG sucks big time.
There are lines in the KG where white has very good chances, like the Polerio-Muzio Gambit, (1.e4,e5 2. f4,exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5. 0-0 gxf3, 6. Vf3) and the Kieseritzky Gambit. In the other hand, the KG can be neutralized by Blkack easily with the Falkbeer counter-gambit, or Abbasia defence. (1.e4, e5 2.f4 exf4. 3.Nf3 d5). I played the KG for years, and I come to the conclusion that it has only a historical value, but in blitz it is compelitely playable.
How to play against the KG: sample:
Let me weigh in with a quote from GM David Bronstein:
"It is more dangerous for Black to play the King's Indian than it is for White to play King's Gambit."
I trust Bronstein's judgement here. Nobody says that the KID is a poor choice of opening, so to me, KG is an acceptable line. The Qh4+ defense by Black is just another way of playing the Black pieces here, and it is neither weak nor stupid. I think that there are better lines for Black in the KG, but this could be a game-time decision by Black, counting on (hoping on?) White's inability to find the right line. And while moving the Q several times in the opening is not regarded as "proper play," I am reminded of another quote, this time by Alekhine. When Alekhine won a game in which he moved his Q 6(!) times in the first 12 moves, an amatuer ssaid to him, "But Grandmaster, the books say that that is bad chess." To which Alekhine replied, "The books say?!? I write the books!" Moral of the story--GMs do what works for them; you should do what works for you.
This is the best post on the thread. KG is perfectly sound, and a number of strong GMs still play it regularly, as is evidenced by the games posted by Scarblac.
Strong GMs still play with it, and still win with it. I don't play it, but have plenty of respect for it.
Incidentally, before I switched to the Sicilian, I considered 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d5 as the safest way of defusing the King's Gambit.
Let me weigh in with a quote from GM David Bronstein:
"It is more dangerous for Black to play the King's Indian than it is for White to play King's Gambit."
I trust Bronstein's judgement here. Nobody says that the KID is a poor choice of opening, so to me, KG is an acceptable line. The Qh4+ defense by Black is just another way of playing the Black pieces here, and it is neither weak nor stupid. I think that there are better lines for Black in the KG, but this could be a game-time decision by Black, counting on (hoping on?) White's inability to find the right line. And while moving the Q several times in the opening is not regarded as "proper play," I am reminded of another quote, this time by Alekhine. When Alekhine won a game in which he moved his Q 6(!) times in the first 12 moves, an amatuer ssaid to him, "But Grandmaster, the books say that that is bad chess." To which Alekhine replied, "The books say?!? I write the books!" Moral of the story--GMs do what works for them; you should do what works for you.
This is the best post on the thread. KG is perfectly sound, and a number of strong GMs still play it regularly, as is evidenced by the games posted by Scarblac.
Strong GMs still play with it, and still win with it. I don't play it, but have plenty of respect for it.
Incidentally, before I switched to the Sicilian, I considered 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d5 as the safest way of defusing the King's Gambit.
Hey, I don't disagree with you at all! But I just have to point out that there are good chess players who think the KID is complete crap. Namely, Victor Korchnoi...
But there are even stronger players who think the KID was good like fischer and kasparov.
You can choose based on what you like, and what your opponent likes. If the opponent likes to play the whole board and doesn't like space imbalances, then maybe play the Dutch or the KID, especially if you like such positions. If the opponent is an attacker who likes these types of positions, then play a more "correct" (i.e. whole-board-defense) such as the Slav or the Nimzo-Indian.
Wait, does that really say that black plays the Caro-Kann because he wants to give his opponent a chance to win?!
I'm equally afraid of the King's Gambit as I am of the Giuoco Piano, the Four Knights Game, the Petroff, the Vienna Game, the Bishop's opening, the Ruy Lopez, etc.
I don't know much at all about these openings, and my playing strength if I adopted them would likely be 400 points lower than my actual playing strength. I don't know the plans involved, I don't have a wealth of blitz game experience to draw upon, I just know really nothing about them.
I also don't play the Sicilian as black against 1.e4 - I don't know those positions either. I have a fairly narrow repertoire, and within that repertoire I have the playing strength that I have developed over time. Changing openings is at this point a handicap I'm not really interested in offering my opponent.
Hey, I don't disagree with you at all! But I just have to point out that there are good chess players who think the KID is complete crap. Namely, Victor Korchnoi...
Heh, Korchnoi says a lot of things. In his book on the Dutch Defense, Stefan Kindermann tells a great story about how he played the Dutch against Korchnoi once. After they agreed to a draw in an unclear position, Korchnoi told him:
Gonnosuke, you're right, I win the theoretical opening battle in the Caro-Kann 4 times out of 5. I think the Spanish is very interesting, I just don't have the time to study it. It is Karpov's other main defense to 1.e4, after all.
Gonnosuke, you're right, I win the theoretical opening battle in the Caro-Kann 4 times out of 5. I think the Spanish is very interesting, I just don't have the time to study it. It is Karpov's other main defense to 1.e4, after all.
You win the theoretical battle 4/5 times in OTB or here in CC>? ... I've been experimenting with the Caro-Kann in Chess.com CC (don't let the hurt/heal votes fool you, ozzie, I'm a wannabe Karpovian), and I think I've been losing the theoretical battle. I'd love comments from you on the C-K game I've got going now after it's done my current, I'll post it win lose or draw.
These games were played before a lot of modern analysis. Show me a modern game, then gloat.
One of those games was played in 2007, another in 2008. I know everything on the internet moves quickly, but how modern do you want to get?