Can someone explain to me why this is not a regularly played option for black, it seems to me that white is the one on the back foot now rather than black; besides the downside of the queen blocking the kings bishop and that taking the e5 pawn back with the queen would lead to a tempo gain for white and a possible kingside pawn rush by white which doesn't appear very dreadful . other than these minor flaws in this set up it looks to me like black has saved himself from the pain of defending a well organised KGA. Can someone please explain what I am missing??
Kings Gambit: 2. ...Qh4+
Sort:
I would say that is not a good move at all do to the fact that you are forced to undevelop the queen and instead of g3 Nf3 would be better leaving the queen useless
You have to search in the chess.com archive, some time ago they have published an article on this very defense. I vaguely recall that the author considers it a satisfying defense. CaseyFgriffin, W can't play Nf3 because of the check.
I guess that this variation,while theorethically (maybe) viable,in being a bit slow asks black much more accuracy than the usual alternatives, and this might be the reason behind the lack of popularity. As far as i'm concerned, i really prefer to accept the pawn and defend against W attack, the positions are messy and fun.
http://www.chess.com/article/view/the-keene-defense-to-the-kings-gambit
it seems this is called the keene defense. B did very well in the games shown, but most of the time W missed some improvements. Superficially i quite like for W the line with d3 showed in the second game.
thanks for quick reply and the link Bresando. It looks playable for black but cramped perhaps accepting the pawn and holding onto it is the best option. . . most people that play the KG know the opening so well and know all the tricks and traps involved though so I still think qh4 is a respectable move but thats just me and my style - i love taking my opponent out of his memorised lines
deac0n wrote:
thanks for quick reply and the link Bresando. It looks playable for black but cramped perhaps accepting the pawn and holding onto it is the best option. . . most people that play the KG know the opening so well and know all the tricks and traps involved though so I still think qh4 is a respectable move but thats just me and my style - i love taking my opponent out of his memorised lines
Well,chess is beautiful exactly because everyone plays something different :) in my personal view there are many good defenses against the KG and you can find better ways to avoid tactical tricks and yust play chess (or, depending on your tastes, enjoing a bizzarre tactical ride). But i see no reason to avoid playing a position that suits your tastes, so good luck with the keene!
bresando wrote:
You have to search in the chess.com archive, some time ago they have published an article on this very defense. I vaguely recall that the author considers it a satisfying defense. CaseyFgriffin, W can't play Nf3 because of the check.
I guess that this variation,while theorethically (maybe) viable,in being a bit slow asks black much more accuracy than the usual alternatives, and this might be the reason behind the lack of popularity. As far as i'm concerned, i really prefer to accept the pawn and defend against W attack, the positions are messy and fun.
Ugh silly of me to miss that. All the same though =)
This is why
May 28, 2011
0
#9
I nearly always respond to 1...e5 with 2.f4. If my opponent played 2...Qh4+ it would be clear that without needing to give up a pawn, I can get a nice lead in development.
I've actually started to adopt the Bishop's Gambit (As Anderssen plays in the game posted by wu345) and even in that variation where white loses the ability to castle on the 4th move, white has adequate compensation with much better attacking lines.
May 28, 2011
0
#10
No the game posted by wu345 isn't why there's anything wrong with 2...Qh4+, obviously since it isn't the Keene Defense 2...Qh4+ [C30] The game he submitted is the King's Bishop Variation of KGA [C33]. Oh well back to the drawing board (or chess board) I guess.
ECO vol C 2nd edition (1981) covers this move in C30 (by Korchnoi) col 3. The line is credited to Tartakower and Keene. The column has 8 FNs and ends with "=." Granted the analysis is 30 yrs old but in an opening this obscure I might give it a go myself sometime!
