King's Gambit A Challenge From Ponz

vs  dzikus

vs Mainline Novelty

Our game progressed a little but no novelties at this point - according to my database we are still following 2 games

Black's pawn structure is better but I do not have to struggle against all those pawns on d6, g5, h6, f4 and white has some potential on half-open g file.

interesting. In Shaw's book Shaw gives 9..Nxc3 more detailed but says that 9..Nb6!? is playable 

I know that everything that is going on in this thread is head and shoulders above my comprehension; I just want to say that I am honoured and very respectful of what ponz is doing. putting himself out there, doing scientific research with full disclosure, with full transparency; its quite amazing, in these days of corporate-controlled science, to see something like what ponz is doing. I hope people have some respect for this guy; its takes guts and trainloads of integrity.

Why would anyone want to play the King's Gambit when the Ruy Lopez is stratigically rich and doesn't weaken your kingside?  There's plenty of tactical opportunities after putting your pieces on their best squares, center can close or open, so plans are clearer, and black is equal in the best lines and has less of a chance of obtaining a slight advantage out of the opening. 

The only reason I can see for the king's gambit is side stepping the Petroff, which has a bad reputation for being too symmetrical and balanced.  However, 3.Nc3! sidesteps this and invites the four knights (symmetry gets broken quick and imbalances start appearing).   3...Bb4 leads to a reversed Ruy Lopez, 4.Nxe5,0-0 5.Nd3,Bxc3 6.dxc3,Nxe4 is a possible line.  

yes, and we don't know that anyone is working on 'the secret cure for cancer', but we know completely and fully what ponz is doing, with complete and full disclosure and complete and full accountability.  

While I rather prefer the Ruy Lopez myself, I have a friend who does pretty well in King's Gambit, especially in rapid and blitz games. The shorter the time control, the more important opening preparation becomes in sharp, tactical lines like KG.

He won against 2 GMs and some IMs in the King's Gambit in short games - had he tried RL, he would for 99% fail because they understand it much better. In a gambit, he can score well because they had not payed much attention to those lines in their preparation and can fall in tactical motives which he knows very well.

This challenge should however prove it is not a good opening in correspondence chess. There is no room for forgetting the lines and so the tactical traps are not going to work.

Tactical traps should really only be set if you're in a tight spot and need to create practical chances for your opponent to go wrong.  Otherwise complications can be great if you calculate that you'd be at least equal coming out of them.  It eats up a lot of time and energy though.  The King's Gambit just doesn't seem very practical as you need to walk a tight rope to maintain equality whereas black has more options. 

Black's overextended g-pawn and white's king having an easier time marching toward the center should still count for something, but not enough to justify playing it. White may be a pawn down in the endgame but piece activity usually compensates, but pawns get traded down it increases drawing chances as two vs. one draw whereas four vs. three win usually. 

I venture to say being able to attack as you develop is better than letting your opponent develop to defend. I like being able to take wild shots sac a piece for development and still have a really good position

I am learning a lot about the Kings Gambit from these games and from reading the excellent book by John Shaw.

Here are my impression so far.

1. The line  1. e4  e5  2. f4  exf4 3. Nf3  d5 seems pretty equal.

2. Shaw says this line is refuted:  1. e4  e5  2. f4  exf4  3. Bc4

is "refuted" I do not think he means Black wins. He means in every line Black gets at least a small advantage.  Game vs dzikus I only have a very small advantage and could even lose if I play poorly. He was the only one to try that line.

3. Mainline Novelty is playing at opening where he sacrifices a piece for a strong attack. It is supposed to be just slightly better for Black, it is called the Rosentreter Gambit.

4. Game vs Porcelli  is a normal looking 3. Nf3  g5 Kings Gambit

4. Two players went for what is probably the main line in the KIngs Gambit and the line Fischer said was busted. [He was wrong about this, or I should say his analysis did not give some defenses which equalized]

However after pouring through the book by Shaw and noticing more than 100 pages on this line...1. e4  e5  2. f4  exf4  3. Nf3  g5  4. h4  g4

Black can [apparently] equalize several different ways but there is one line which gives Black a very slight advantage. Enough of an advantage to just about kill 3. Nf3  g5  4. h4 for Black in future games [as who would want to play an opening where Black can easily force a slight advantage}

Chess King Dreamer is "in" the Line and so is RRM888. The game vs RRM888 is further along and will have significance in the future for the Kings Gambit.  Here are the moves so far.

We will see if Chess King Dreamer will vary from the line above?

[I don't think he can]

Very interesting... I personally play 4. Bc4 when faced with g5 but whatever I understand the kiesertzky a bit from OTB play with friends in high school

Why can't you just play Nxg4 instead of d4?

Also I can play if you want to, I'm rated over 2200

because of Qxe4+ Qe2 and now black has a decent position

I messaged this person but no response as yet.

jetfighter13 wrote:

Very interesting... I personally play 4. Bc4 when faced with g5 but whatever I understand the kiesertzky a bit from OTB play with friends in high school

I always play that line as well jetfighter. What does Shaw say about that one, Ponz?

Shaw doesn't like it

Ponz, it says you are not accepting challenges

Archer thank you. I will change that.