King's Gambit Accepted?

He doesn't really know.  He just likes saying that.

http://www.academicchess.org/images/pdf/chessgames/fischerbust.pdf

Did anyone hear that Fischer busted the King's Gambit?

He wrote a "busting" article back in 1961, but then played the gambit over fifteen times both against serious competition and in simuls.

Margaret Fischer?

Bust of Napoleon is about as much use.

Just ignore noleryer, he does not not understand that todays engines and analysis has proved Fischer's bust to be inaccurate. It was still impressive though and a lot was correct, but not enough to end the opening for good. His definition of bust is that white gets put in a disadvantage, even though white gets compensation. Just ignore him and carry on your conversation. I love the KGA, anybody play the muzio gambit or double muzio? It is really fun

I am more so asking when the opportunity arises do they play it. I have only played it a few times but really enjoy the concept. And from my understanding, not many people know about it. In all the games I used it, Black was confused

I do not think many people play it because they are afraid of Qh4+. But whites position is pretty good with the king placed on f1. Fischer even played this variation so it could not have been horrible.

Well, if Fischer's word is gold and his bust is sacred, then the fact that Fischer adopted the Bishop's Gambit exclusively over the King's Knight's Gambit should indicate the superiority of the Bishop's Gambit.  Thomas Johansson's "The Fascinating King's Gambit" focuses entirely on the Bishop's Gambit, which he claims has several advantages over the King's Knight's Gambit.  I'd written a brief article in the Bishop's Gambit as played prior to the 20th century that may be of some interest.

I hate to break it to you but you are feeding into it as well, he just wants attention

The problem I had was that he his evidence in his argument was also debateable lol ( That Fischer was the best of all time )

so how did he bust it?

See post #64.

(Why do I bother?)

He didn't bust it, he merely wrote that he busted it.

Fischer, as a general rule, refused to analyze with his peers because that would mean acknowledging that he indeed had peers. Consequently, much of his analysis was unilateral and flawed.

oh ok. @doggy i cant download pdfs

A Bust to the King's Gambit

by Bobby Fischer, 1961

The King's Gambit has lost popularity, but not sympathy. Analysts treat it with kid gloves and seem reluctant to demonstrate an outright refutation. "The Chessplayers Manual" by Gossip and Lipschutz, published in 1874, devotes 237 pages to this gambit without arriving at a conclusion. To this day the opening has been analyzed romantically - not scientifically. Moderns seem to share the same unconscious attitude that caused the old-timers to curse stubborn Steinitz: "He took the beauty out of chess."

To the public, the player of the King's Gambit exhibits courage and derring-do. The gambit has been making a comeback with the younger Soviet masters, notably Spassky (who defeated Bronstein, Averbach and myself with it). His victories rarely reflected the merits of the opening since his opponents went wrong in the mid-game. It is often the case, also, as with Santasiere and Bronstein, that the King's Gambit is played with a view to a favorable endgame. Spassky told me himself the gambit doesn't give White much, but he plays it because neither does the Ruy Lopez nor the Giuocco Piano.

The refutation of any gambit begins with accepting it. In my opinion the King's Gambit is busted. It loses by force.

1 P-K4 P-K4 2 P-KB4 PxP 3 N-KB3 P-Q3!

This is the key to a troublesome position, a high-class "waiting move." At Mar Del Plata, 1959, I played 3...P-KN4 against Spassky, but this is inexact because it gives White drawing chances in the ensuing ending: e.g., 4 P-KR4 P-N5 5 N-K5 N-KB3 6 P-Q4 P-Q3 7 N-Q3 NxP 8 BxP B-N2 and now 9 P-B3! (replacing Spassky's 9 N-B3) 9...Q-K2 10 Q-K2 B-B4 11 N-Q2 leads to an ending where Black's extra Pawn is neutralized by White's stranglehold on the dark squares, especially KB4.

Another good try, but also inexact, is the Berlin Defense: 3...P-KR3 4 P-Q4 P-KN4 5 P-KR4 B-N2 6 P-KN3 P-N5 (also playable is 6...P-Q3 7 PxBP P-N5) 7 N-R2 PxP 8 NxP (8 QxP loses to 8...PxN 9 QxB QxP+ 10 K-Q1 Q-B3) 8...P-Q4 9 P-K5 B-B4 10 B-KB4, where Black cannot demonstrate any advantage.

Of course 3...P-Q4 equalizes easily, but that's all.

4 B-B4

4 P-Q4 transposes, the only difference if White tries to force matters after 4...P-KN4 5 P-KR4 P-N5 6 N-N5 (White also gets no compensation after 6 BxP PxN 7 QxP N-QB3 or 6 N-N1 B-R3) 6...P-KB3! 7 N-KR3 PxN 8 Q-R5+ K-Q2 9 BxP Q-K1! 10 Q-B3 K-Q1 and with his King and Queen reversed, Black wins easily.

4...P-KR3!

This in conjunction with Black's previous move I would like to call the Berlin Defense Deferred. By this subtle transposition Black knocks out the possibility open to White in the last note (to move 3).

5 P-Q4 P-KN4 6 0-0 B-N2 7 P-B3

Necessary to protect the QP. 7 P-KN3 is always met by P-N5.

7...N-QB3

Here there is disagreement as to Black's best move. Puc and Rabar, Euwe, Keres, and most analysts give the text as the mainline and mention 7...N-K2(!) in passing. I think 7...N-K2 is best because there is no reason why Black should not strive to castle K-side: e.g., 8 P-KN3 P-Q4! 9 PxQP PxNP 10 PxP (if 10 N-K5 PxP+! 11 K-R1 0-0 12 P-Q6 QxP wins) 10...0-0 11 Q-N3 Q-Q3 12 K-N2 N-B4 wins. There is little practical experience with this sub-variation.

8 Q-N3

If 8 P-KN3 P-N5 9 N-R4 P-B6 10 N-Q2, Euwe and other analysts betray their soft-mindedness toward this opening by giving the inferior 10...B-B3(?) 11 N(2)xP PxN 12 QxP - "unclear"!! This is yet another example of sentimental evaluation - after 12...Q-K2 followed by B-R6 and 0-0-0 Black wins easily. The Pawn on KB6 is a bone in White's throat so why force him to sacrifice when he must anyway? 10...Q-K2 is the strongest move.

In this last variation (instead of 10 N-Q2) White can vary with 10 Q-N3 but then comes Nimzovitch's beautiful winning line: 10...Q-K2 11 N-B5 BxN 12 PxB (if 12 QxP R-N1 13 QxN+ Q-Q2 14 QxQ+ BxQ and Black has a winning endgame) 12...0-0-0 13 BxP Q-K7 14 Q-K6+ (if 14 R-B2 NxQP! 15 RxQ PxR wins) 14...R-Q2! 15 R-B2 Q-Q8+ 16 R-B1 Q-B7 17 N-Q2 N-B3 (threatening N-Q1) 18 B-N6(if 18 Q-N3 QxQ 19 BxQ P-Q4 with a winning endgame) 18...P-Q4 followed by N-K2 with a winning game for Black.

8...Q-K2 9 P-KR4 N-B3

Again theoretical disagreement. Perfectly good is 9...P-N5! 10 BxP (forced, not 10 KN-Q2 NxQP! 11 PxN BxP+ etc.) 10...PxN 11 RxP - given by analysts again as "unclear," but after N-B3 followed by 0-0, White has nothing for the piece.
10 PxP PxP 11 NxP NxKP

A wild position, but Black is still master.

12 BxP+

The game is rife with possibilities. If 12 NxN QxN 13 RxP Q-K8+ 14 R-B1 Q-R5 15 BxP+ K-Q1 16 Q-Q5 N-K4! 17 PxN BxP (threatening B-R7 and mate) 18 R-Q1 Q-N6 wins, owing to the threat of R-R8+.
12...K-Q1 13 NxN
Not 13 N-K6+ BxN 14 QxB QxQ 15 BxQ NxQP!

13...QxN 14 BxP

14 RxP also loses to 14...Q-K8+ 15 R-B1 R-R8+ 16 KxR QxR+ 17 K-R2 QxQB etc.

14...NxP

And Black wins...

Of course White can always play differently, in which case he merely loses differently.

p.s. I include the above for infomation and, thus far, have ventured no opinion. [D_S]

I think it's been established that "bust" means something very different to you than it does to (most of) the rest of us. Likely even different than to Fischer, who possibly thought his amazing one-half-move analysis of Ng1 was thorough and unflawed enough to put the KG to bed.

thx doggystyle

I don't know if this has been posted in which case I apologize for a repost.

According to the strongest computer cluster in the world with 2880 clusters spending more than 4 months calculating, the kings gambit is busted. The only move that draws for white is 3. Be2, everything else loses by force assuming perfect play. Acording to the man behind it the computer has analyzed around 10^100 moves, using an algorithm that classifies a position evaluated as 5.12 advantage as a forced win (acording to the developer the computer has never failed to convert such an advantage).

Moreover interestingly enough, the Knights gambit has indeed been busted and it's now proven that black will always win with perfect play with the move 3.. d6. White has a theoretical forced draw after the move 3.. g5, so Fischers move was indeed more accurate! I highly suspect it was by pure luck though. Fairly interesting read but hardly anything that will matter to the average player of the Kings gambit although they have stated that the findings will be published and possible to acces on the internet.

Here's a link to a news article covering it on chessbase:

http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4008047