What do you think of this:
I saw this opening line in one of the games on the site. Is 4..Be7 really a great move that ruins white's plans to castle and attack black's kingside with eventual bishop sacrifice, or does white have an adequate response to it? What do you think?
This position after Kf1 isn't very bad for white, Fritz give g3 instead of Kf1, I know this is a theory move, but without the d5 exd5, (which blocks the bishop to f7) and after g3 fxg3 0-0 gxh2 Kh1,but I'm not convinced as it seems to me thatblack can esaily defend himself. However, it leads to a very tactical and sharp game that could very well turn in white's favor easily and quickly if black is not extremely tight and cautious,
I checked the position after Kf1 with Fritz, and there is only one move (Be7) that gives a very, very small advantage to black.
There's also the pulse-quickening 6. g3?! fxg 7. 0-0 hxh2+ Kh1
Though this line isn't usually played in the Falkbeer and white's by down 2 pawns, white has a freer game and the possibilities are somewhat interesting.
There's also the pulse-quickening 6. g3?! fxg 7. 0-0 hxh2+ Kh1
Though this line isn't usually played in the Falkbeer and white's by down 2 pawns, white has a freer game and the possibilities are somewhat interesting.
I pointed out this variant, which poses a lot ofimmediate threats to black as well, but with d5 exd5 (meaning the bishop's diagonal is blocked) do you think the resulting position is still sufficient to compensate the material loss? Checked Fritz and it gave a quite good advantage to black, but I think that if black doesn't play flawlessly it's easy for white to take back the advantage, and perhaps with interests...
I don't know. That what you would trying to prove in actual play. The pawn blocks the Bishop, but it's a temporary situation since the pawn is mobile. The threat of the exposed attack on f7 seems worth something. I don't necessarily recommend this line, particularly due to the material imbalance, but on the other hand, I wouldn't hesitate from playing it myself.
Any particular reason?
It's, of course, not dead at non-master level, but as for master or grand-master level, wikipedia says it is almost not played since humble Bobby said he refuted the King's gambit (the Fisher defense). So has theory refuted it, wikipedia, again, says no, but why then is it not played much anymore?
I'm a regular Kings Gambit Player who plays 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 and the Nf3 lines.....
Kings Gambit is an opening from another time when armies were still charging each other with bayonets it is best suited for Players who are like Mikhail Tal who aren't afraid of very sharp tactics you must be ready to sacrifice and throw everything including the kitchen sink at the opponent be willing spill buckets of your blood or the opponents on the chess board if that's what it takes to win that is if you want to play the opening in the right spirit! todays Players they don't like that kind of fighting or are willing to take great risks when big money is on the line everything they play is carefully prepared with Fritz and their seconds.
Remember the battle at the end of the Lord of the Rings return of the King? that's the kind of fighting a Kings Gambit involves.
if white saw the possible check, this would stop it.( i'm not so sure on how this would affect the rest of the game though.) Instead of Bc4, white could use h4. this would enable the rook to defend h4 aswell as the knight on f3. This makes it disadvantageous for black to play Bh4 as they would lose a bishop for a pawn. then, if they moved their queen to take the capturing piece (probably knight), they would also lose their queen
Instead of Bc4, white could use h4. this would enable the rook to defend h4 aswell as the knight on f3. This makes it disadvantageous for black to play Bh4 as they would lose a bishop for a pawn. then, if they moved their queen to take the capturing piece (probably knight), they would also lose their queen
There are only two things wrong with this. The position on the board is the position from which we should be springboarding forward. Otherwise I could say, if White had played 1.d4 he wouldn't be in this position at all!
The other thing is that, as alec94x stated so well, the King's Gambit must be player in the spirit of the gambit. That means, especially in the opening phrase, that defensive thinking must be avoided. White's already given up too much -in material and in exposing his King - to waste tempos. Developing moves must be quick and sharp, as White must, without qualification, maintain the intitiative.
White needs to find his plan along with threatening moves to implement it.
It's, of course, not dead at non-master level, but as for master or grand-master level, wikipedia says it is almost not played since humble Bobby said he refuted the King's gambit (the Fisher defense). So has theory refuted it, wikipedia, again, says no, but why then is it not played much anymore?