Chess - Play & Learn


FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store


Kings gambit really refuted? opening and puzzle!!

  • #1

    Technically the kings gambit may be refuted but in  human play is it refuted. Here is an  example of  how easily black can go wrong in the fischer defense. Keep in mind that  the mate was found by fritz and fritz assures me that after fxg3 black is lost. I will present it as a puzzle to you but first show you how to get there. 

  • #2

    sorry forgot to mention  that on chessbase news they say that after a few months rybka refuted the kings gambit check it out on chessbase. 

  • #3

    please comment

  • #4

    Man, chess players have no conception of April Fools Day, let alone humor.

  • #5

    Well, the King's Gambit is a holdover from the romantic period of the 19th century, when defense wasn't considered a top priority and development was king (pun not intended).  The idea behind the accepted version is to trade away a pawn for an extra tempo, as well as to open the f-file allowing O-O to have the king's rook point towards that relatively squishy f7 square.  

    This dynamism of material vs. time, as well as its featuring in The Immortal Game, are enough to convince me that the King's Gambit will still see use on all but the highest levels of play.

  • #6

    didn't know it was a joke, got fooled, sorry

  • #7

    still cool puzzle though

  • #8

    Well, I like the KG, but your line is not forcing. E.g. Black can simply ignore the bishop and go 9...Kd7. I don't see an advantage for White then. But even if Black takes the bishop, this should not lead to a forced mate. E.g. why should Black play 12...c5? He could sac his queen with 12...Qf6 instead, the tree pieces would give him quite some compensation after 13.Rxf6 Kxf6.

  • #9

    Fritz and another engine say Qf6 still isn't enough compensation but the best move and ignoring the bishop is probably just bad since  the king is stuck in the center and black isn't up any material after hxg3


Online Now