King's Gambit: What Is Wrong With 5...h5?

Why is this variation less popular than 5...Nf6?

Because the pawn on g4 is not important. Black wants to keep the pawn on f4 as long as possible and then having Nh5 in reserve is nice. 

When I first read through this thread I was tempted then to past comment but I thought I would just let it go to see who else might have something to say. Your question “King’s Gambit: What is wrong with 5..h5?” is really not as easy to answer as one might think. I think the two answers you received so far (before mine that is) are, for the want of a better word, interesting.

First of all ‘five of swords’ hits us with the gem ‘pawns can’t do very much’. I am sure F Philidor would be fair spinning in his grave at that. The simple fact of the matter is that pawns given the right set of circumstances can be stronger than any minor piece (plus a rook). It is this sort of dynamic consideration you have to take into mind if you want to go for it with 5…h5.

Moonnie on the other hand thinks that Black is more interested in maintain his f pawn rather than the g pawn. He well maybe right which is why so many prefer main line Kieseritsky. Then again the available theory on 5…h5 does suggest that its point is to strong point the f7 square with either Rh7 or Nh6 (Interestingly enough Rh7 is the move favored by all the manuals I have on the King’s Gambit : Korchnoi & Zak, MacDonald and Korchnoi again in ECO) and then attack the h pawn by undermining it defense by diverting the g pawn with f4 to f3 (which also given the right situation closes down the f file for a bit).

Whether all this answers your question or not is another thing. The thing is with modern chess openings one school of practice is to plug a position into a chess playing program of some strength, let it chug away a bit and treat any output as gossip. Another school is to follow pretty much the first school but add in a GM or IM opinion into the mix. Yet another involves obtaining (or downloading) specific databases and doing a dump into a single reviewable format. And on it goes. Then you will have all of the old school with their books, piles of magazines and more importantly their practical experience. Every one of these groups will each have an opinion as to ‘what is wrong with 5..h5’. My point is (and sorry if I strayed) the only person that will ever know if there is anything wrong with 5…h5 to any personal satisfaction will be you. You know what strength you are play at and what strength opposition you will be playing. Meaning 5…h5 may well work against some but not others. If you don’t have the strength and the skill set to match to handle the positions (and the weaknesses) after playing 5…h5, it may not work at all.

Good luck in you explorations

Checking the engines, 5. h5 is more solid.

@LongIslandMark Rh8->Rh7 after Bc4 is largely considered a lemon on the basis of Bronstein-Dubinin,Leningrad 1947 and Kere's recommendation of 8.Nxf7 as played in Stanley-Fraser London 1837.

@FiveofSwords It depends on what you class as "Active" and "Passive" I guess. I would suggest though that thrusting ones pawns forward to h5, g5->g4 & e5->f4->f3 to play Be7->Bxh4 is far from a passive plan.

guys, monnie is just completly right! When you play e5 you should know some secrets about different opening lines. In the kingsgambit black should (according to many many reasonable GM's) try to hold the f pawn. The g4 pawn is not important.

Last I heard the whip variation was refuted.  Then again not everyone is prepared for a King's Gambit even though they should be just in case.  There's always a debate over the soundness of the King's Gambit whereas no one argues against the Neo-Archangelsk, Berlin Wall, Najdorf, Scotch, Catalan, English reversed Dragon systems, and countless others.  The King's Gambit on the other hand is somewhat controversial. 

Some have claimed the Fischer Defense refute the King's Gambit, but no one denies that the Fischer Defense is quite sound.  Even if the King's Gambit is a draw with best play like most openings it would be quite a hard faught draw where white uses all the technique he has.

  Maybe best play in the King's Gambit leads to a hard faught draw where white needs to use the short side defense in a rook and pawn vs. rook ending, maybe even a Vancura position where reaching the book draw requires loads of technical expertise until then? 

Apparently White is fine....

and then again...

The only person who made that claimwas Fischer himself. As the opening databases show, it's not exactly superior to any other defense

Are you trolling? Black is much better in that position. Don't take passed pawns lightly.

A game from the 19th century is hardly good evidence. A modern player would have won that position from the black side.

The g4 is important, though, since it usually plays a role in an  attack on the king. It also helps to keep the positon locked up. Allowing the pawn to be taken gives white too many opportunities.

Black did win.

Apparently White is still fine because games from last century played between renown strong players of the time doesn't count.

Maybe not as well known but Milner-Barry was no slouch

no I am not trolling, the f4 pawn is more important than the g4 pawn. Thats why black often plays d5-Bd6 in the main lines to defend f4. It seems you have no plan of the kingsgambit. I can give you many quotes of decent GM players, maybe that will change your mind...

You do know that repeat sh*t will not make it come up smelling of roses? 5...Qe7 is junk

Is your name a typo? (switch the "d" and the "r") That's only way to explain that not nice behavior of yours.

Nope, Pfren is right. It pretty much gives black an easy game. It's the main reason why I stopped playing this line. Luckily there are plenty of guys like you willing to make it easier.

Ponz111 had some good games and advice about 5..Qe7, and simply White is fighting to draw. http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/kings-gambit-a-challenge-from-ponz?page=16