King's Bishop's Gambit
Sort:
If you want us to improve on your game you must post games:p
Feb 26, 2012
0
#3
well I would post some I have lost, but unfortunately I have only lost one, and that was to a 2000 so I am quite happy with that. I will find one that i enjoyed and post it with a short analysis in a few.
Feb 26, 2012
0
#5
Here is the win, with an analysis
um thats about it, if you want more I will do some digging
that should do. now you just need someone good with the bishopgambit to read it:)
Feb 27, 2012
0
#7
i play the king's gambit, but i always play 3. Nf3 in the KGA. i just find it more solid for white in an otherwise full on attacking opening. even with 3. Nf3 you have plenty to choose from and white's defense is stronger. also, i didn't like playing against 3...Qh4+ and giving up castling.
Some harsh words from pfren but yes c4 didnt do anything for you. You hoped he would undouble your pawns. If you do a move hoping he blunders you should probably look harder:) anyway, while doubled pawns in general is bad, instead of c4 picture yourself pawns on b2, b4, c3 and d4. Looks like a helpful doubled pawn to me. I would instead have played d4 taking more space in the center with tempo followed by castling and then Bg5 working on the Ffile. Working on the Ffile is important in kings gambit and if he moves h6 its good for you weakening the king. You should be on the lookout for d4 instead of d3 because it gives you more center and oppourtunities. If your opponent controls more center than you an attack is unlikely.
Feb 27, 2012
0
#9
pfren wrote:
There is nothing appealing about it the way you play it.
I did not look at all at the second game- when someone plays something like 3...Nh6 then there is no chess to look at.
On the first game, your opponent did not play optimally, but you played worse. The reason? You have no idea what to do when your opponent does not allow an automatic attack. Already starting from 4.d3 your play is far from perfect. Moves like 12.c4? indicate that you are still positionally blind. Before that move, white's play was rather questionable- but after 12.c4? which weakens a lot of squares in white's camp for no apparent reason, white is just lost.
Factly, after 16.de4 you do not have an "isolated kings pawn": you have an isolated king, which will be mated soon.
It's really funny to complain on move 25 about blundering a "fork": You are already a clear piece down, and your king is in a hopeless situation.
I'm affraid the quote above says it all. To be honest i didnt even bother going all the way to move 25 let alone the 2nd game.
What you need is not trying to play like Anderssen and Kieseritzky in meaningless KGA positions, but classical systems like Italian and maybe spanish where you will learn how to place your pieces and the influence of the pawns in a given position.
Feb 27, 2012
0
#10
Thank you for the advice, I will put what Im said into practice, and what tigergutt said, Um, on the last comment, I would rather not play those just because they don't produce the quick games i like to play, because people know how to handle them, The KG is one of those where I feel I can learn something about gaining space, tempo and a developmental lead, which is all I really want.
You will learn about piece placement and pawns in the kings gambit to. but i want to stress, the kings gambit does not give you tempo or development. What piece is f4 developing?:p after something like 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 c6 who has development lead now? Black really has alot of responses and most of them are good and many require precision from white to not get bad position. The kings gambit is no easy ride but at least he is equal.
pfren wrote:
There is nothing appealing about it the way you play it.
I did not look at all at the second game- when someone plays something like 3...Nh6 then there is no chess to look at.
On the first game, your opponent did not play optimally, but you played worse. The reason? You have no idea what to do when your opponent does not allow an automatic attack. Already starting from 4.d3 your play is far from perfect. Moves like 12.c4? indicate that you are still positionally blind. Before that move, white's play was rather questionable- but after 12.c4? which weakens a lot of squares in white's camp for no apparent reason, white is just lost.
Factly, after 16.de4 you do not have an "isolated kings pawn": you have an isolated king, which will be mated soon.
It's really funny to complain on move 25 about blundering a "fork": You are already a clear piece down, and your king is in a hopeless situation.
Excellent post pfren!
Nothing personal against jetfighter, but he appears to be another of these Mikhail Tal types that have decided they are aggressive attacking players without even stopping to consider if they truly are that type of player.
Yes attacking, and sacrifices are really cool, and all that, but if you're not even going to try and study and understand the positional side of chess you're only studying half the game. And how far do you expect to go studying half of something?
Feb 27, 2012
0
#14
pfren wrote:
No, you won't learn those things by studying any opening.
You will learn these, plus many more things, by studying annotated games of the great masters.
Ok, so like who, cause I want games that won't bore me to death, but that have some element of moves that help.
any names I can look up
also Tiger gut, By that I meant that Black gives up some center control if he accepts, and thus I have more space, and can develop faster, and more easily
sorry for the confusion
I think pfren wants him to do both tactics and study games
^ you are wrong. You are just trying to be nice. Bad moves are bad moves.
Yes and no. 3. Nh6 was a pretty bad move though. If my oppoent plays 1 h4,followed by 2 Rh3, I kinda know what the game is gonna be like.
There's a difference between something unorthodox and something that is just plain wrong.
ChristianSoldier007 wrote:
i never said it wasnt a bad move, but one bad move does not take away from the value of a game. Even if you are right and this game in question isnt good, you cant tell on the third move what the rest of the game will contain
I always find it odd when I read comments from chess players of my skill level lecturing masters on this game.
Neither you nor I have any idea what an IM can tell from the third move of a game.
While christian is rated 1300 him teaching players to not put knights on the edge of the board is fine advice. You cant criticise him for that:) but its not interestning. Its almost playing a piece down
ChristianSoldier007 wrote:
i never said it wasnt a bad move, but one bad move does not take away from the value of a game. Even if you are right and this game in question isnt good, you cant tell on the third move what the rest of the game will contain
Actually if your opponent is placing his knight on the rim on the third move, it can tell you alot about that player. Unless if course youre playing Kasaprov and hes taking it easy on you.
Hi all, I want to know What is your opinion of this Opening, and How I can better use it, Because I exclusively use this against the KGA and I use again almost Exclusively (now) against the Open game use the KG. I just hope some people will give some advice.
Thank you and have a nice day