Fischer's "bust" started with 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4?! g5 and so on, and he proved that black is better. But as with all false assumptions, the mistake most frequently lies at the very beginning: 4. d4 and suddenly black is worse. The same is for your variation - one can employ Kieseritzky gambit (1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5) which is an extremely sound opening where black can't hope for advantage with best play, but can practically force a draw with 5...d6. A move such as 5...Qe7 is inferior, and I'd say white is better up to 9th move in the variation You gave due to the lead in development and better pawn structure (10. c3 is lame and I'd give it a question mark). Still, for white to squeeze more from the opening, one could go either for Greco-Philidor path (1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. h4 h6 6. d4 d6 7. c3) or drop king's knight's gambit altogether and play 3. Bc4.
Is There a Bust to the Kings Gambit?
A move such as 5...Qe7 is inferior, and I'd say white is better up to 9th move in the variation You gave due to the lead in development and better pawn structure (10. c3 is lame and I'd give it a question mark).
5...Qe7 is just fine, and the same goes for another sideline, 5...Nc6.
Please comment on things you know, not on things you assume.
If Sveshnikov and Najdorf had stuck to basics and especially Richard Reti, chess would not have many of the dynamic systems which are available today. If IM pfren chooses to believe a line in C39 as giving equality for black is inferior, he may do so just as today there are some who insist the Earth is flat.Please be relevant, helpful & nice!
tubebender wrote:
cornbeefhashvili wrote:
Stupid stuff. If you want to be a good player, stop trying to be "inventive". You`re not even close to doing this type of thing yet. Stick to basics, grasshopper. Some day you will thank me--many have.
It's a poor mind that limits its own imagination. And I will never thank anyone who has a condescending tone who doesn't have the slightest idea of who I am.
The Cornbeefhashvili variation is okay but why not 2...d5! the Falkbeer? There are some good points for it if one isn't comfortable accepting the gambit:
1.It immediately challenges the e-pawn, black usually equalizes in an 1.e4 opening if he can trade off the e-pawn.
2.Opens lines for his bishops and the center, allowing for active piece play.
3.Develops before white and therefore may castle first.
4.Against absolute beginners they may fall for 3.fxe5??,Qh4+ 4.g3,Qxe4+ 5.Q or Be2,Qxh1 winning a rook by force.
5. 3.Nf3 is viable, but even here black obtains great play: 3...dxe4 4.Nxe5,Nd7 5.d4,exd4 e.p. 6.Bxd3 with a slight lead in development for white, but his f-pawn is committed when we have a classic open center where the f-pawn will likely become a liability. It may be a dream, but black can play for a queen or at least a major piece ending where white doesn't have his f2-g3-h4 shield available. In other words, he'd be vulnerable to checks. White would of course naturally try avoiding this. There is contact between the knights, and Qe2 may force black to exchange knights. The isolated e5 pawn exerts a temporary cramping influence but is otherwise weak.
6.The mainline is strategically and sometimes tactically rich: 1.e4,e5 2.f4,d5!? 3.exd5,fxe5 4.Nf3,Nf6 5.Bc4,Nxd5 6.0-0,Be7 7.d4,Be6 and both sides have plenty of play in an equal position.
I remember a couple of months ago that there was a lot of discussion on the King's Gambit and any possible busts to it on a thread. The consensus (at least what I remember) was that John Shaw had very convincing analysis against the Bishop's Gambit side, but that 3. Nf3 had not been busted, although there were a number of paths to equality.
Shaw's analysis of 3.Bc4 Nc6 isn't terribly convincing, but I do not feel like plagiarizing analysis by others done in the Chesspub forum. Everyone who's interested may read it there.
I still prefer 3.Bc4 d5 as Black.
After 3.Nf3, I have lost count on how many variations Black has equality, and declining with 2...Bc5 or 2...Nf6 is also fine.
The bust to the King's Gambit is 1. e4 ...e5, 2. f4 ...Bc5! Your welcome.
Stupid stuff. If you want to be a good player, stop trying to be "inventive". You`re not even close to doing this type of thing yet. Stick to basics, grasshopper. Some day you will thank me--many have.
Seriously. You do not even no who he is. He/she maybe Garry Kasparov or Caruana. That is pretty mean. You did not even get a computer to analyze it.
I tried Bobby Fischer's bust to the King's Gambit and won. I kept a small center and attacked it ferociously. I ended up winning a Queen.
My original post was from ECO "C" 39/2 fn 6 with 5...Qe7.I believe however that the Falkbeer Counter Gambit with 3...c6 is excellent too, and gives black excellent piece activity.Please be relevant, helpful & nice!
Falkbeer counter-gambit is 3...e4. 3...c6 is Nimzowitsch's counter-gambit.
I think it is fairly clear that with best play the King's Gambit is a draw.
What's fairly clear too is that (almost) any sound opening with best play is a draw too. ;-)
The reason I like 5...Qe7 as in my original diagram from the game David/Sherzer Budapest 1992 is because right away the Queens are exchanged, dashing any hopes white might have of a brilliant attack and minimizing any hope for a positional advantage.I also believe black obtains a pleasant initiative after 8...Qe7! which is psychologically frustrating if white is an attacking player.I quite playing the Kings Gambit as white because of these moves and wanted to share them on this site.I noticed however that there are some people that never heard of ECO and are quick to make judgements based on their ignorance.Thank God Aaron Nimzowitsch did not listen to such fools.One of the greatest chess books ever written is Nikolai Minev's "French Defence New & Forgotten Ideas".This great book should be an inspiration for creative chessplayers to always search for interesting improvements and subtle innovations in your favorite opening systems.Please be relevant, helpful & nice!
Today many 1.e4 players are searching for an alternative to the Ruy Lopez, namely because of the emergence of the "Berlin Defence" and the huge amounts of theory that go with it, in all of the main and sub variations for both white and black.GMs Gallagher, Grischuk, and Fedorov frequently employ the Kings Gambit.This forum topic will therefore examine blacks best defences and if possible, a refutation.I believe the defence that comes closest to being refutation is as follows: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4 3.Nf3 g5! 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Qe7! 6.d4 d6 7.Ng4 Qe4 8.Qe2 at this point black can play for a draw with 8...Qe2 9.Be2 Nc6 10.c3 h5 11.Nf2 Bh6 12.Nd3 Nc6 as in ECO "C" 39/2 5th edition, or black can play for a win with 8...Qe7! 9.Qe7 Be7 10.Nf2 Nc6 11.c3 Nf6 12.Bf4 Rg8 with a nice initiative.