King's Gambit 3.Nf3 or Bc4 ?

That 3.Be2 line was the subject of the infamous April Fool's joke that Chessbase published claiming that Rybka had refuted the King's Gambit back in 2012.

http://en.chessbase.com/post/rajlich-busting-the-king-s-gambit-this-time-for-sure

This is good line for white :)

The problem with 3. Nf3 for me is 3..Nf6. I still haven't found a good way to deal with this.

Try 4.e5 :)

God, you are to these chess forums what the grinch is to Christmas...

I have a lot time for you when you talk about professional openings like the Open Sicilian or the King's Indian or Grunfeild. You are actually worth listening to....

However when you come to openings used by us dreaded amatuers, you whip out your dogmatic brush and try and paint us all with the same rose coloured variations....Pfen...mate....I understand you are a good player but you have to remember not all of the punters on this site want to play sleep inducing chess to grind out wins or draws in 70 to 1000 moves...there are players who want to play slashing shit win, lose or draw...(but preferable win)...and say to their opponents "I played the King's Gambit, I smashed....you suck"....Its not ideal but just is...

I play crap like the King's Gambit (such as the Kere's gambit) and I still manage to win more than the odd game

Pfren....remember my friend...refutations are only as good as your next opponent knowing them

My very best to you and you all

HTH

You aren't trying to play objectively best? Why not? You need to try to to get better usually..

Thats a very good question mate.

Guys like Pfren play chess for a income, therefore their perspective on chess (openings) is more subjective and less objective (to a certain degree). I don't have an issue (as such) with Pfren stating that what I play doesn't work. The point is though that what does not work for him (at the standard he plays) does not mean it will not work for me at the standard I play.

He plays chess over the board to a decent standard, after all he is a I.M. I play postal to a decent standard ( while I do not a title my ICCF rating stands at 2105 ELO). You can not compare the 2

I play the King's Gambit at postal because it is a wonderful anti-engine opening. The likes of Fritz, Gull and Rybkka fair rupture themselves claiming that Black has a clear and or winning advantage...that is until the f pawn drops

People who wank on that chess opening theory is simple as plugging moves into an engine and claim that one side or another has an advantage are simple plonkers of the highest order...

chess is not that simple

If you play correspondence chess, then you need to be interested in what the best opening moves are. Your opponents will find them.

Nothing against the kings gambit, but giving concrete variations that lead to big advantage is not dogmatic.

Very nice

3...Nc6 refutes 3 Bc4

I'll play 4... Nf6. Simple development is better than the complications after 4...Qh4+ 5 Kf1.

Hi all, what about 2.../Bç5 ?

2...Bc5 is okay but doesn't really challenge White's setup.

Not a refutation in the sense of some forcing sequence and 0-1, but with simple development moves (Nc6, Nf6, Bb4 if White plays Nc3, 0-0) and he should stand better, which is a big accomplishment for Black in the opening. The power of 3...Nc6 is its flexibility. Black can still go for g7-g5 or, as is more common, Nf6 and d7-d5.

Because Nc6 is a developing move without showing your hand. White's next move will greatly determine what kind of game lies ahead, while avoiding the complications White seeks when playing 3 Bc4.

Well if you feel more comfortable playing 3...Qh4+ you should, it's not a bad line. You just have to be ready for complications, in which White probably feels at home too, whereas you could get a better position without any of that.

3...Qh4 is too early for Qeen

uspavani, in a concrete variation such as this, generalities aren't very useful. Why do you say it's too early for the Queen to be developed? What concrete variation do you have to demonstrate this?

Added: Several strong GMs have played 3.Bc4 Qh4+, including Karjakin, Sargissian, Bologan, Nikolic, Lautier... It's interesting that so many strong GMs are making such an obvious blunder by moving their Q so early.

Refutes meaning black is better by force in all lines with correct play