King's Gambit New Variation?

Hey Guys,

I've been fiddling with the King's Gambit Accepted Lines after reading Bobby Fischer's "Bust to the King's Gambit" Article and came up with a new variation, or at least what I think is a new variation. Based on the move though, I expect it to have been found or used by now... but here it is... I call it the Peasant Variation.

The Peasant Variation - (g3) which gambits another pawn giving the opponent an entire 2 point advantage, if they take it... in exchange for our h-file rook to be free, to take black's only "developed" piece and of course keep our strong king pawn. This g3 pawn also prevents the qh4+ threat, leaving your knight to develop in other positions, your queen is free and is a pretty much kingside attack - queenside castling game. This variation has cons of course, for one, unlike the classical or fischer variation, your minor pieces (knight or bishop) isn't developed, however it tries silences your opponent's pieces... Of course, you could always move your queen pawn up, if they decline and move bishop, queen or even a pawn to defend their pawn. Note your position is also quite spacious as compared to the opponents' once again opening up room for massive amounts of combinations and attacks.

Of course, my rating is only about 950 so I'm not the master of chess... So... I would like to open up to Chess.com Forum for assistance For A LOT OF HELP Analysing this opening as to whether it is useable... THANKS GUYS!! YOU ROCK!

Even if you accept it, I'd be worried about my own position with white. However I'd be temped to go 3...d5, which white cannot accept. After 4.Bg2 Bd6 black is picking up e4 or g3 on the second move. He's a clean pawn up while the white structure is destroyed.

Well, thw KG is a rather old opening and almost everything has been tryed, but i've never seen this move. The general idea in not totally unheard of (there's a variation where W sacs all the kingside pawns and uses B resulting h2 pawn as a shield for example) but is usually reserved for later. Looking at chess365 database i found 1 game between high rated vietnamite players (2300-2500), where W played g3 and B answered 3...d5(your proposed Bd6 looks weak, blocking B development). B won that game.

My first impression is that W king is too weak to survive. I would play 4...d5 opening the center and going for a direct attack. Maybe there are hidden resources for W but overall i fear the variation is just too risky.

I do not deny that King's Side position looks very shaky... (Now that a retake another look) I only was playing some random move (Bd6) as I didn't  know the best or book move...

This would be my response (I know with some inaccuracies or whatever lawl... but I'm still learning... =P) to d5.

It can grow into something but needs to be tested more I propose you create a theametic Open tournament for this and record all games that take place in the event and not just focus on the result as players so often do.

We all are still learning :)

i actually meant 4...d5 after 3...fxg3. 3...d5 was dutchday suggestion and was also played in this master game. 

In the variation you proposed W problem is not the king position, but the fact that he is 2 pawn down in an ending for questionable compensation. Generally speaking when you sacrifice material for development you want to retain your pieces on the board to generate attacking chances. With the queens off, it's harder to attack and W compensation vanish. d3 is a good move but the idea is not to defend the e pawn. the idea is to meet dxe4 with something like Nc3, and if B grabs another pawn with exd3 then Bxd3 with a good advantage in development. 

(off topic: the fisher defence to the KG is not so strong. Theory marches on and Fisher original article is now outdated. In fact most KG players are quite happy to face the Fisher since it's easier to create irrational complications here than in the classical g5 variation. Moreover W has the bishop gambit (3.Bc4) as an alternative to 3.Nf3)

I think white would at least have some compensation after Bxf4, developing and reclaiming a pawn. I would still play Bd6

Well... this opening certainly is getting technical... in the variation posted above, I don't see the point of bf4... maybe you can elaborate on it?

As for the 2 points disadvantage, suppose we didn't bring the queens off the table and went with the other variation

By the way, chessmaster102, I think that's a great idea... cept I'm 15 and don't know how to start a tournament =( 

I'm 16 and still put together unrated tournaments =) I'll put a note on your profileexplaining what you can do later on but right now I'm in school and sneaking just to be on here ;)

That's the basics of playing gambit. Without this understanding, better not to play gambit at all. Sorry, but the g3 is horrible.

 As I said, I don't think black should play dxe4 in that position. Black is still a pawn up but white is a bit ahead in development. Assuming black declines it with 3...d5, 4...Bd6 still looks strongest to me. If white does take, you still got the Qh4+

thats just your opppinion.

No, that's a simple truth. The reason why it looks like a new variation is because nobody wants to play it, because it is a fundamental mistake. The basic idea behind the KG is to ruin Black's kingside then attack it. Here WT ruins his own kingside without compensation.

It's the same game i posted before.

Dutchday's suggestion look strong indeed. Only it's a bit strange to think that a 2500 rated black player missed this, so i wonder if there is some way for W to escape with a decent position. But i can't find anything. 

yusuf_prasojo,of course the idea looks dubious, but it's always easy to talk and often hard to find good answers. Trying to find the best counter is at least a way to practice our opening understanding.

1. The variation is not new and is not sound: http://www.chess.com/opening/eco/C33_Kings_Gambit_Accepted_Gaga_Gambit. You'l see black scores a 100% (2 games out of 2).
2. I like the knight sac.

If the initial position is left "unanalyzed", what is the meaning of further analysis? There are many possible continuations here. An analysis should be in a form of explanation about a position, not a series of possible exchange sequence.

For example when you say about "finding the best counter", to be honest I don't know which side (Black or White) you expect to find the counter. Because in my opinion White is in trouble (after the second gambit is accepted), but White is the one who creates the position so how come he must find the counter?

Okay, WT is trying to open position so his pieces (including the Rook) are ready to attack Black's kingside. But BL is not any tempo behind. A ...d5 will open up his pieces and counter the center pawn.

I'm not trying to dismotivate or anything, but how else do you expect to understand an opening?

Of course you are completely right, and a general talk about the position is the basis of every good analysis. For some reason i thought i made a long general positional evaluation in my first post, instead i only made a very brief comment

"My first impression is that W king is too weak to survive. I would play 4...d5 opening the center and going for a direct attack. Maybe there are hidden resources for W but overall i fear the variation is just too risky."

Maybe we moved to concrete lines too early before descriving the position to the OP. Of course everyone here is well aware that this idea is dubious.

Still i don't like to make strong statements without giving a single move. Chess is not such a simple game.

The GM game is certainly interesting, just a slightly different idea from what I suggested with black. The idea doesn't quite pan out, but you can see Rh1 gets at least some pressure on the black kingside. Of course white ought to castle queenside, which he does not manage to do because the e1-h4 diagonal is so much weakened. This is why I think Bd6 or Qh4 is an adaquate defence for black. I want to say it is difficult to look at ''positional'' considerations when several pawns are hanging from the start and the white king is threatened by checks. Concrete variations and tactical considerations are far more important then. Maybe if white manages to survive the first moves, you can consider the nature of the position. If the king ends up on f1, well maybe black has more attack than white...

ztizk zo zee zday zjob

=P hahahaha