How NOT to respond to the King's Gambit!

I was talking about OTB chess.

On here I only win the theoretical battle against people who don't know how to use an opening DB.

The french is even more punishing against an unprepared opponent and (sometimes even better), unfamiliar with the french and/or not a good strategic player. Of course the french can sometimes be sharp, but it's very important to know the strategies and someone who doesn't understand chess will usually choose the advance variation (not that it's bad, they just blindly play it allowing easy equality and not understanding the drawbacks) and easily lose their center. For me it's one of those openings that I probably know better than my opponent because it's my main defense to 1 e4. Early attacks should not work against it especially if they don't know the opening.

I prefer accepting the gambit as black.

Ok, but winning as white won't prove anything.

I feel the same way.

i dont like the kings gambit much because you lose your pawns

 he sure is brave

Interesting. I play 1.e4 pretty much exclusively (Occasionally I'll play other openings in training to help my positional understanding, or if I need to handicap myself, or if I would play my training partner in a OTB tourney, but it's about 99% 1.e4 for me) but I wouldn't say that I really know the Spanish. My plan against 1...e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 is 3. Bc4, playing the Evans Gambit, Ng5 against the two knights, and d4 against most other lines (usually ...Be7 or ...h6). I've played the Spanish occasionally, but my knowledge of those lines is only passing, only slightly better than say my knowledge of the KID, which I would never play with black. I suspect that KG players, Vienna players, etc. who mainly try to avoid Spanish theory don't know the Ruy Lopez.

To be fair, the CK is the one main defense which I haven't had one consistent plan or variation that I've played for very long and stayed happy with, followed probably by the Alekhine. But I also find that such openings tend to not give me very big problems, I just don't get great advantage from them.

That's interesting... when I started playing chess at around eight years old, all anyone played was 3. Bc4 and 3. Nc3! I had never even heard of the Ruy Lopez until middle school! After all, why wouldn't you develop your bishop to c4, where it attacks f7? I was one of the first the learn the Sicilian (from watching big people play) so I used it because I thought it made me seem a lot better at chess and I think it had that terrifying effect. I remember the other kids taking a very long time to make their second move after 1. ... c5.

And today, I'm an e4 player who doesn't know the Ruy Lopez at all!

Yet fischer published the famous 1961 article 'the King's gambit is busted', after which he never played it...

Well, there's been a lot of activity on this thread I started!! Glad to see it, that's what forums are all about! - Very interesting comments...

I have a few to add, of course:

I think it has been shown clearly that the KG is still playable, and I completely disagree with the statement that playing d5 by black dissipates the threats of the KG lines for white. Indeed, I look forward to such a play by black, because I am VERY comfortable with that response, and have found it fairly easy to push a win and create winning opportunities via the myrriad of tactics that KG games tend to yield.

I do accept that, overall, Fischer's defence to the King's Gambit is probably best (e.g. playing d6). Its main weakness, as far as I can deduce, is that is blocks off the black bishop, and limits diagonal attacks on the white king via d4 - a pivotal square in the KGAccepted games. Indeed, as white, I focus a lot of attention on securing the d4 square, and when black blocks off his chances of exploiting that diagonal, it makes my job easier.

Lastly, I'd like to post one more game to illustrate why I like the KG so much. The following miniature I just played is a very good example of what this thread was ORIGINALLY about : how NOT to respond to the King's Gambit!! I punished my oponent here in a 20 move checkmate game with what I consider a very weak reponse, but may seem like a natural move to those less familiar with the KGA lines:

Well, Kasparov gives his stamp of approval to 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d5, that's good enough for me :)

I always wondered... what happened after fischer's article? Did people just completely disagree?

Oh, really? How about... 1968, Fischer vs Wade, in Vinkovci? Or later at the same event, vs Minic? Fischer won both games.

And the several times he played it in 1964 simuls, against such players as K. O. Mott-Smith (who defeated Alekhine)? There are many, many cases of him playing it in simuls, although this obviously isn't as strong evidence as my first point.

Ah, some more strong ones. The US Championship of 1963, vs. Larry Melvyn Evans.

I'm sure I could find more, but this is easily enough to prove that what you said was wrong. 

But those games were in the Bishop Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4), right? And in the article he just claimed that 3.Nf3 was busted.

Hello again y'all,

Another nice KGA game to post here, this time highlighting the efficiency of the Muzio Gambit! Very interesting tactics here, and it certainly adds strength to my argument that 3. ... g5 is NOT the best way to respond to the king's gambit, though this is highly debated.

Enjoy!

Feedback welcomed and encouraged.

I froget which grandmaster said is but the quote went something like this: "Any opening in play under 2000 is sound". The reason why many GMs don't play aggresive openings like the Kings Gambit or Italian is not that it may be risky (a player takes more risk playing Kings indian defense) but because after the quick brawl for the center the position equalizes and the pawn formations solidify and players are left with a "boring" game. The great attackers like Tal who plays a solid opening then attacks! The reason why gambits work at lower levels is because the opponent does not know the tricky tactical lines that he must go through to equalize.

 Also tarius78 at move 9. e5 might have been better. But nice game!

anything else is drawish? I think not my friend. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with some of the points/comments/posted games that MANY have left in my other King's gambit thread entitled :Is the King's Gambit dead?

It is VERY comprehensive, and many master level games are cited, and this line is discussed in full. Indeed it seems to be quite weak indeed for the PREPARED white player!...

HOWEVER, I'm open minded, so please do elaborate - please show me how 3. ... g5 is more of a guarantee for the full point, because I see it as a good chance for a full point for white!Especially in the Muzio gambit lines, which Chess.com's openings explorer shows as a significant advantage for white!

Though, as is not unheard of, I may have overlooked something... If so, I'm dying to know what since I constantly seek to improve, and wish to master all the knowledge pertaining to the king's gambit as I can!

Tx.

I think both approaches have merit - solid, quiet opening, followed by beautiful aggressive mid-games, but also I got to say that KGA games are quite tactically intriguing!

You are right about 9. e5 I thought about, more as an afterthought, but I felt that the g2 pawn begged the question of security. 9.e5 is the more aggressive move, and more in line with the wildish, aggressive opening I played. Good point!

Glad you enjoyed the game! BTW - other than move 6. ... by my oponent, any other major mistakes by black that you (or anyone) noticed?

3...g5 is basically the challenge to the king's gambit, gaining space and not going for awkward piece placements for defending it. Black's kingside looks shaky, but after h4 g4 although white can go ahead with his ideas of d4, black can counterattack with ...Nf6 often giving up f4 and attacking the center instead. Then white needs to go for the kingside pawn while black can take the e pawn. I have always preferred black in that position because although black played ...g5 he still has his orignal f7 pawn and usually a bishop on g7. So I have always preferred black's position because white could try to attack, but black's position is solid enough and is not as dominated in the center as he once was. And it's not like white's kingside is ultra safe either. Basically I think white only has half compensation. If white doesn't play h4 black can just fianchetto and again can counterattack in the center with ...c5 or ...d5 or just piece pressure and castling. White tends to get more central space but that f4 pawn though not central is still pretty annoying and who knows it could be used for black to attack even. I don't know much about the muzio gambit however, which is a diferent beast altogether. That demands preparation and I believe with best play it's a draw. Another good line for black is 3...d6 first but it's a bit slower.