Please post it as I am interested to see it. Oh, my apologies. I do not know much about the salvio gambit so I do not have an opinion.
King's Gambit Refuted
Sort:
I think 9... Qf5 is enough siting Millican (which I've sited quite a bit talking about these lines; this article is also one of the ones which recommends my Nc6 against the Salvio.) http://www.millican.org/chess/muzio.pdf I suppose I was glib. It's actually not so clear. I think Black is close to losing if not lost after 9... Qxd4 but now I can't remember where I first read an opinion that Black should win after the less greedy Queen retreat up two pieces. Micllian gives an antidote to some old analysis by Stienitz and shows a game with a better try by White ending in a win, but I don't think Black defended right in that game. There's a game on chessgames.com somewhere (maybe someone can find it?) Where Black plays an early d5 giving up a pawn or two himself in the 9... Qf5 line in order to catch up in development and get a clearly winning position, and I think it might be best play. Sorry I can't remember better. I'll look for it and post if I find it. I also asked about this line in the thread here on the Muzio Gambit and was shown a possibly better attempt by White to attack with Qe2 as well as another interesting double piece sac that I don't buy. http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/kings-gambit-muzio-gambit?lc=1#last_comment ... oh, and it looks like I'm not the only one here with that opinion of Qf5: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/muzio-gambitdouble-muzio
The Muzio Gambit is not sound. 6...Qf6 and black's position is perfectly safe.
Millican exaggerates the potential of the gambit.
Honestly, giving two exclamation marks to Bxf7+?! as if it gives white a winning game?
There is better analysis out there.
johnsmithson wrote:
Wow. I didn't claimj you were a troll. I think psychotic is much more likely. Have you been to a doctor? There are some meds out there that I think will make you feel and function much better. From where I sit, it looks like your head is a mess of delusions and fragmented reality. Unless your posts were just meant to bug people.
Interesting. Not only is Nh6 the more popular move, but it is Houdini's first choice in all lines.
There is no point in trying to be fancy. If black keeps the position stable he will be a pawn ahead, and with a better endgame position to boot.
BMeck wrote:
Yereslov please refer to post 63
I did. The King's Gambit has been out fashion since the days of Bronstein and Spassky who got favorable results with it.
It has been analyzed to death.
black is toasted? lol wat
It was played a few days ago in the World Cup, Shimanov (2664) vs Kamsky (2763), in a regular time control game. White won.
Kamsky sat for a dozen or so minutes after white whipped out 2.f4. Clearly he was trying to remember the king's gambit theory and decide how to meet it. It goes to show that any opening is viable if you know what you are doing in it, even up in the elite players circle.
daddyjordan22 wrote:
Kamsky sat for a dozen or so minutes after white whipped out 2.f4. Clearly he was trying to remember the king's gambit theory and decide how to meet it. It goes to show that any opening is viable if you know what you are doing in it, even up in the elite players circle.
Kamsky was also a better player than his opponent.
Aug 18, 2013
0
#74
Yereslov wrote:
daddyjordan22 wrote:
Kamsky sat for a dozen or so minutes after white whipped out 2.f4. Clearly he was trying to remember the king's gambit theory and decide how to meet it. It goes to show that any opening is viable if you know what you are doing in it, even up in the elite players circle.
Kamsky was also a better player than his opponent.
Which proves that it is not refuted even further...
BMeck wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
daddyjordan22 wrote:
Kamsky sat for a dozen or so minutes after white whipped out 2.f4. Clearly he was trying to remember the king's gambit theory and decide how to meet it. It goes to show that any opening is viable if you know what you are doing in it, even up in the elite players circle.
Kamsky was also a better player than his opponent.
Which proves that it is not refuted even further...
It doesn't prove anything, since Kasmky could play 1. f3 and still win.
Aug 18, 2013
0
#76
According to you he lost to a refuted opening. You are not making any sense
Yereslov wrote:
It doesn't prove anything, since Kasmky could play 1. f3 and still win.
Kamsky was playing Black.
steve_bute wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
It doesn't prove anything, since Kasmky could play 1. f3 and still win.
Kamsky was playing Black.
It helps when you name the opponent.
Either Kamsky blundered or his opponent was higher rated.
Neither posibility justifies the gambit.
Yereslov wrote:
Either Kamsky blundered or his opponent was higher rated.
Neither posibility justifies the gambit.
You feel you are qualified to make such a statement? No insult intended, but I wonder if you understand what "gambit" means.
A gambit is a risk ... you invest material for compensation, then try to turn the imbalance into a winning position. There are no "winning" gambits, because that would imply no risk -- they would not be called gambits, they would be called forced wins.
In your opinion then, what would justify a gambit?
steve_bute wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
Either Kamsky blundered or his opponent was higher rated.
Neither posibility justifies the gambit.
You feel you are qualified to make such a statement? No insult intended, but I wonder if you understand what "gambit" means.
A gambit is a risk ... you invest material for compensation, then try to turn the imbalance into a winning position. There are no "winning" gambits, because that would imply no risk -- they would not be called gambits, they would be called forced wins.
In your opinion then, what would justify a gambit?
The Queen's Gambit is justifed. The opening gives up a pawn in in order to destabilize the center without weakining the king-side.
The King's Gambit, on the other hand, hand destabilizes the center with the dubious notion that white will get a strong counter-attack by weakening his own king-side safety.
This might work against a patzer, or someone with zero opening knowledge, but no one prepared against it should have trouble.
And back in the thread someone posted a Muzio gambit which was not even close to being a Muzio gambit. I love the people the that say the Muzio is refuted... if it is refuted, post the refutation.
The game I posted was a Salvio Gambit. It's not the Muzio Gambit but it's grouped under the same ECO code C37 which Houdini's book calls "C37: King's Gambit Accepted: Muzio Gambit" That's why that label was on the annotations because I used Fritz running Houdini to analyze it. I've been arguing this whole time the Salvio Gambit is busted. (and I have posted that refutation in this thread.) I don't think the Muzio is busted at all. (I do think the Doublt Muzio is Busted and I can post the refutation of that one if you'd like.)