Kings Gambit: Theory

In chess, a mistake is a move that causes a drawn position to be lost, and a winning position to be lost or drawn.

Thus, is the King's Gambit, 2.f4 a mistake? Can Black force a win from the resulting positions? Assuming 1.e4 leads to a draw with perfect play, and assuming 2. f4 leads to a draw from perfect play, 2. f4 would not, actually, be a mistake. 

I will set out to explore this possibility, using LiveBook and the world's top engines. We shall see what I uncover.

"Can Black force a win from the resulting positions? "

Bobby Fischer thought so.   The debate is still raging however, but the consensus is that white has no advantage in the King's Gambit as black has many ways to equalize quickly.  Then again the Berlin in the Ruy leads to fast equality for black too but is far easier to play as white than the King's Gambit, and there's much less room of going wrong.  In fact, the theoretical onus in the Berlin Wall is on black whereas it's on white in the King's Gambit. 

Summary: Berlin Wall = easy equality for black, but black must prove he knows how to implement the thematic strategies and how to handle such positions.  King's Gambit = easy equality for black at least, but white must prove he knows how to play such positions, such as making sure black can't make use of white's kingside weaknesses to improve his own position further and how to use threats against f7 to improve your own position (certain lines where this applies of course)

Currently looking at this variation. All moves after the initial opening are Komodo 8's first choice after a fairly extensive analysis time (ranging from ten minutes to several hours). Once an end is reached I'll start extending the analyses and see if improvements can be found.

Very early I see a mistake (used in this case to simply mean a non-optimal choice, 3...Qh4+ is certainly playable) as 3...Nc6! is black's best according to GM Shaw (he researched the King's Gambit for many years writing his book)

3.Nf3 is the objectively best move, but 3...d6! and white will have troubles facing the Fischer defense usually involving ...h6 ...g5 ...Bg7 and ...Qe7.  Though things won't always develop that way, and ...g4 and ...f3 is described by Fischer as a bone in white's throat. 

Fischer's analysis of 3...d6 has been shown incomplete. What later followed was the Ng1! treatment for White, but then another breakthrough was found for Black (a timely f5). As things seem to stand now, I think Fischer's Defence with f5 has unresolved problems for White. I don't play KG in correspondence anymore because of the f5 discovery.

3...d6!? 4 d4! g5 5 g3! Quaaaaaaaaaaaaaade

@TheGreatOogieBoogie: you do a good job of summarizing John Shaw's book. It seems quite unbiased and thorough, and my casual reading of it made me think it is a good starting place to look at the King's Gambit. Certainly better than previous works I've read on the subject.

I actually have found that playing Muzio Style against the Fischer works :)

Re: #8 ... After 5.Bc4 Black is better to play into the Hanstein, and White has nothing.

(The Hanstein is White's worst nightmare in the non-Keizeritzky lines of the 3.Nf3 lines. I play 4.Bc4 for fun only, never in a serious game. Only an extremely uneducated Black willingly bypasses the Hanstein and enters the Muzio for you.)

move?? not very good on the names as each variation has about a million named lines.

Hanstein:

1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 d6 5.d4 h6 6.O-O Bg7 and Black is safe with an extra pawn, although he still cannot be careless on the kingside. White has better chances with 4.h4 (Keizeritsky).

When you play 4.Bc4, you're gambling that Black is unaware of the Hanstein Gambit. I win a lot of Hansteins in blitz, but it's always because Black did something stupid on the kingside. When Black plays properly, I lose.

Black can't force a win even if White plays 1. a4,... 2. a5 so the idea black could force a win from move 2 of the King's Gambit is ridiculously far-fetched.

I've yet to see any two players play perfect chess, not least because there is no absolute method of determining the single best move from start to finish.

Ok now I know what you are talking about. pretty much just solidifying the pawn chain and playing Bg7.

I personally don't like when Black play's that way, but can get around it with active play in the center since I figure that Bc4 will come at some point I play it anyway it also feels more natural than some Keisertsky positions.

BTW - I played the Hanstein as Black back in the days when the KG was not rare on the tournament circuit, and beat a lot of cocky players rated well above me. It was great watching their facial expressions gradually change as they realized they were going to lose.

And I did the head game too -- stared at them steadily on their clock time.

um a good source (chessgames.com) has white winning similar to 45% black winning 37% and the rest being draws... to me that is doing pretty good for white. this is out of 8,270 games.

Ok but still what is the overall win percentage, a good 4-5 % over the Italian or Spanish game.

Assuming we're not talking about a line that has been refuted, the winning percentage is unimportant. Your understanding of the opening is important.

Some of the more common KG lines lead to positional advantages for White that more than make up for the pawn. White doesn't need to improve his position, because his is already better -- he merely needs to 'tighten the screws' and win the endgame.

that is the modern way to handle the gambit. use the central advantage, as well as a better pawn structure and control of the half open file. and win the endgame. of course Black still has to be careful to avoid an actual attack, but if white doesn't blunder and regains the pawn He has a slightly better position in practical play.

Considering black at least equalizes in most openings nowadays, I find it hard to believe that the kings gambit has a line that simply is better for white with good play from both sides. Especially since it's a dubious opening like the KG