Kings Gambit Novelty???

  • #1

    My Kings Gambit Novelty.

    Can you see a refute? I want to know out of curiosity and for use in real games.
  • #2

    I can see some fifty games played like that- a few of them between GM's.

    The problem with it is 7...Nc6 against which white has tried all three sensible moves (8.Bc4, 8.Bb5 and 8.0-0-0) but Black seems being just better in all cases (although it's rather easy to blunder if you first meet this position OTB).

  • #3

    Your right, but for some reason, when I continue the line on Stockfish, the line is -1.13 for Black after Nc6, but after 0-0-0, the evaluation jumps to + 0.76. Any idea on why this might happen?

  • #4

    No idea. After 8.0-0-0 Qh4 is reasonable and likely best, but Black has scored 100% with the equally logical 8...h5.

  • #5

    OK, thanks! I guess it wasn't as good as I thought :(

  • #6

    I think it is good as long as you win with it. It may be not perfectly sound, but whatever, you probably are not playing GMs or what, it may be tough for them to refute or to defend OTB.

    "If you wait for luck to turn up, the life becomes very boring." Mikhail Tal

  • #7

    To add something to my previous post:

    The "rating" on this site is the only thing by which I can know something ybout your chess strength. You are rated 1608, so I suppose there is at least a small difference between you and someone rated 1731. I had this game against him.

    http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=51136695

    I achieved 1850 points with similar style :) Against some opposition you don't have to play always the objectively best move to win.

  • #8

    The knight sac on f3 is certainly not a novelty, almost at any point in the KG. Even 3.Nf3 g5 4.d4 g4 5.Bxf4 gxf3 6.Qxf3 is pretty old hat, and gives white a very dynamic position. But here, again, Nc6 is problematic for white.

  • #9
    melvinbluestone wrote:

    The knight sac on f3 is certainly not a novelty, almost at any point in the KG. Even 3.Nf3 g5 4.d4 g4 5.Bxf4 gxf3 6.Qxf3 is pretty old hat, and gives white a very dynamic position. But here, again, Nc6 is problematic for white.

    Sorry, before I didn't know that, I didn't go to Chess.com's Game Explorer, or anything, I just used some intuition. Why are all the good ideas taken?

  • #10
    senor_ananas wrote:

    To add something to my previous post:

    The "rating" on this site is the only thing by which I can know something ybout your chess strength. You are rated 1608, so I suppose there is at least a small difference between you and someone rated 1731. I had this game against him.

    http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=51136695

    I achieved 1850 points with similar style :) Against some opposition you don't have to play always the objectively best move to win.

    NICE GAME!

  • #11

    This line seems pretty similar to the Muzio gambit variation. It's hard to say how your variation fares in comparison - it might be easier to gain kingside play, but in exchange for the knight, the Muzio gambit gains enormous pressure on the f-file. The LSB also hasn't been developed in your game... I would actually reccomend Bc4 before 0-0-0 as Bg5 might be a useful threat, forcing Qd7 ( I think that's best, correct me if I'm wrong), which also shuts in Black's LSB. Eh, just some thoughts. Your variation is certainly playable.

  • #12

    I just want to add my opinion: the king's gambit is refuted as long as your opponent knows the refutation. None (almost none) of us plays against GMs, not even titled players, so why should we not try it ? KG is a beautiful, in my opinion maybe the best opening against an unprepared opponent who wants to play e5 against e4.

    None of our opponents have time to do a "4 month analysis on some 2800 cores super-computer" so the KG players can take a sh*t on it. Again, I repeat it is just my opinion and I don't want to persuade someone who doesn't want to play it.

  • #13

    I guess people know the date of the article...

  • #14
    VladBGhita wrote:

    Vasik Rajlich claims that he refuted the King's gambit after 4 months of analysis on some 2800 cores super-computer. You might check the Chessbase.com article about that.

    This variation has some practical chances, but loses by force, as it appears. I cannot tell you what the "force" is, ask Mr. Rajlich about that. :)

    Wasn't that an April fools joke?

  • #15

    How about instead of 5.Nc3, why not 5.Bc4?

    Because assuming both players follow the same moves after Bc4, won't it be better?

    White can move the bishop on f4 somewhere else, and discover an attack similar to Scholar's Mate.

  • #16
    DaBigOne wrote:

    How about instead of 5.Nc3, why not 5.Bc4?

    Because assuming both players follow the same moves after Bc4, won't it be better?

    White can move the bishop on f4 somewhere else, and discover an attack similar to Scholar's Mate.

    Seems worth a try. The problem is black can simply reinforce the g5 pawn with h6, instead of the advance g4, which is really asking for trouble. White then has a tough time disrupting this pawn chain.These sacs on f3 usually work better when black doesn't play d6, but goes straight into 3...g5, the Kieseritzky. Here, an early Bc4 looks pretty good: 3...g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.O-O gxf3 6.d4!? See Morphy Paul vs Knott. Maybe Bobby had something with 3...d6, but of course, he didn't "invent" the move.....

Top
or Join

Online Now