Dear Yereslov,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/refute?s=t
You're welcome.
King's Gambit Refuted
Sort:
Aug 2, 2013
0
#2
Refutes major openings.
Keeps a 1300 rating.
JamieKowalski wrote:
Yes, I am aware of the meaning thank you. As a 1900+ rated player you should be able to see that black is much better off, otherwise I can only assume you are trolling.
Scottrf wrote:
Refutes major openings.
Keeps a 1300 rating.
I only play five minute games online ----> my rating in blitz with the USCF is 1642.
By the way, I haven't been playing on this site. I have been playing on ChessCube, which has an overall better interface when it comes to live chess.
Scottrf wrote:
Refutes major openings.
Keeps a 1300 rating.
I also fail to see what my rating has to do with the analysis.
I'm not so bothered about the analysis, I know the King's Gambit is terrible.
alexmoore421 wrote:
0-0 is played more often then ne5
5. Ne5?! is the most common reply in my games. Very few players are willing to sacrifice the knight, since the Muzio Gambit has been somewhat refuted by 6...Qf6.
Scottrf wrote:
I'm not so bothered about the analysis, I know the King's Gambit is terrible.
Peter Leko, Micheal Adams, Judith Polgar, and Nigel Short have all played it with some success.
It's playable.
Yereslov wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
Refutes major openings.
Keeps a 1300 rating.
I also fail to see what my rating has to do with the analysis.
Analysis? What analysis would that be...
Yereslov wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
I'm not so bothered about the analysis, I know the King's Gambit is terrible.
Peter Leko, Micheal Adams, Judith Polgar, and Nigel Short have all played it with some success.
It's playable.
Lucky they weren't playing you then if you refuted it.
Here is a nice game with the Bishop's Gambit, which is a bit more sound.
Scottrf wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
I'm not so bothered about the analysis, I know the King's Gambit is terrible.
Peter Leko, Micheal Adams, Judith Polgar, and Nigel Short have all played it with some success.
It's playable.
Lucky they weren't playing you then if you refuted it.
None of them played this line. And why are you so upset by the fact?
Anyone can refute an opening given enough time, experience, and computer analysis.
It doesn't take a high-rated player to do that.
NajdorfSlayer wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
Refutes major openings.
Keeps a 1300 rating.
I also fail to see what my rating has to do with the analysis.
Analysis? What analysis would that be...
Do people just go into threads to start flame wars? Did you miss the diagram in the begining of this thread?
warrior689 wrote:
A blank comment. How wonderful.
Come on ! King's gambit is not refuted ! If there were such a forced loss for black, GMs wouldn't play it, don't be ridiculous !
Franky2929 wrote:
Come on ! King's gambit is not refuted ! If there were such a forced loss for black, GMs wouldn't play it, don't be ridiculous !
Very few GM's play this line. I checked my database with over 1 million games, 365 Chess, and ChessGames.com
Crabiano wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
Here is a nice game with the Bishop's Gambit, which is a bit more sound.
4.exd5 in that variation is not sound. Published analysis shows that black could obtain a winning attack with 15...c5! and after 16.d5 g5 17.h3 f5!
Also, the analysis you have provided does not give any indication that the King's gambit is refuted, as is claimed in the title. Why do you insist on making such pointless threads?
4. exd5?
When was that an option?
And black is toasted.
Makes me wonder why people keep playing this opening.