You have a better move?
I know it looks bad, retreating it to its starting square, but to the best of my knowledge, no other squares work even as well as Ng1
King's Gambit, why not played at master level?
Sort:
Schachgeek, do you have an examples of master/gm games of them playing the King's gambit? And, do you have any ideas on the abovementioned game?
Thanks for your help on the main question, though
The reason why the kings gambit is not played by the masters is because everyone opens with 1. D4. Also For the masters that still play 1. e4 They always play against 1...C5
Fiveofswords wrote:
i cant help but point out that i think someone who thinks everyone opens with d4 or that the petroff is boring have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
If you saw the Us Championship, or even the world chess championship between Topalov, and Annand, you'd know that 1. D4 was played almost all the time.
Not 100% sure although I have read that in the King's Gambit, it is easy for Black to equalize by returning the pawn back. Black being able to equalize so easily is the reason why the KG is not played at the highest level; technically, White should have initiative as s/he has the first move and White recieves no compensation for the sacrificed pawn in terms of positional advantage or extra tempo. It does however open up the position and thus allow for an exciting game from both players; with computers, an adequate defense can now be found in lines of the KG where if Black can hold out until the endgame, s/he can have a very slight advantage in the endgame as been shown by engines. I'm sorry but I do not have these lines to share...however, 5) Ng1 is not the best choice, I believe that Ne5 is most popular and Ng5 is also very playable.
oozecube2 wrote:
Schachgeek, do you have an examples of master/gm games of them playing the King's gambit? And, do you have any ideas on the abovementioned game?
Thanks for your help on the main question, though
Here's something I found from 2001 played by former world champion Spassky. You may not like; it ends in a draw.
Jun 1, 2010
0
#8
GMs Zvjaginsev, Nigel Short, Kamsky and Drazic have been known to play the King's Gambit now and then.
Nigel Short played the KG very recently against Anish Giri, game ended in a draw
Fiveofswords wrote:
i cant help but point out that i think someone who thinks everyone opens with d4 or that the petroff is boring have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
I agree totally, and if you look at current french variations e6 is just as dynamic as sicilian...
Also how can you write off the Ruy Lopez - that breaks my heart :D? - ok Evans is refuted but Ruy is as strong as ever... I concede it is a bit boring after the first million games but theres so many tricks to learn and whats more romantic than build up play against the kingside and attack with all pieces!!
Then theres the Karo Kann and not to mention the sexy continuations in the Grunfeld - screw the petroff play the icelandic carnage!
HIT THE BOOKS KIDS
One can only guess what goes on in the elite battle fields. But Black probably has an easy game with some line. It is a myth to say that the king's gambit is to "risky" for top players, the KG is probably just going through some theoretical trouble.
tacticalforce wrote:
Fiveofswords wrote:
i cant help but point out that i think someone who thinks everyone opens with d4 or that the petroff is boring have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
I agree totally, and if you look at current french variations e6 is just as dynamic as sicilian...
Also how can you write off the Ruy Lopez - that breaks my heart :D? - ok Evans is refuted but Ruy is as strong as ever... I concede it is a bit boring after the first million games but theres so many tricks to learn and whats more romantic than build up play against the kingside and attack with all pieces!!
Then theres the Karo Kann and not to mention the sexy continuations in the Grunfeld - screw the petroff play the icelandic carnage!
HIT THE BOOKS KIDS
The Evan's Gambit, my favorite gambit has been refuted? I have not heard this before. I would love to play this gambit against anyone...
From what I know (not much) that this is one of the most (if not the most) sound gambits for White; can you show the line(s) that shows the refutation of this gambit?
Fiveofswords wrote:
do you really think Ng1 makes any sense?
I'm confused by all the pooh-poohing Ng1. It's the only viable move from the given position. Ng5 or Ne5 just blunder the knight for nothing.
Fiveofswords wrote:
ManyBuffalo wrote:
Fiveofswords wrote:
do you really think Ng1 makes any sense?
I'm confused by all the pooh-poohing Ng1. It's the only viable move from the given position. Ng5 or Ne5 just blunder the knight for nothing.
Not for nothing. Look, thats exactly what I meant, you already sacrificed a pawn for attacking chances didnt you? if you are afraid to sacrifice more to continue the attack then...you simply are not a suitible KG player.
Ng1 is the main line...
Quoted from Wikipedia- "The point is that after 4. d4 g5 5. h4 g4 White cannot continue with 6. Ne5, as in the Kieseritzky Gambit, and 6. Ng5 is not recommended either. This leaves the move 6. Ng1 as the only option, when after six moves neither side has developed a piece."
LavaRook wrote:
Fiveofswords wrote:
ManyBuffalo wrote:
Fiveofswords wrote:
do you really think Ng1 makes any sense?
I'm confused by all the pooh-poohing Ng1. It's the only viable move from the given position. Ng5 or Ne5 just blunder the knight for nothing.
Not for nothing. Look, thats exactly what I meant, you already sacrificed a pawn for attacking chances didnt you? if you are afraid to sacrifice more to continue the attack then...you simply are not a suitible KG player.
Ng1 is the main line...
Quoted from Wikipedia- "The point is that after 4. d4 g5 5. h4 g4 White cannot continue with 6. Ne5, as in the Kieseritzky Gambit, and 6. Ng5 is not recommended either. This leaves the move 6. Ng1 as the only option, when after six moves neither side has developed a piece."
Yes, Wiki is probably right, too... but you can't fault 5 of Swords for calling Ng5 more in the spirit of the opening... And Morozevich tried the "unplayable" Ng5 against Kasparov, no less! (cheeky -- but AM did lose)
Jun 1, 2010
0
#16
1.e4 e5
2.f4 d5
Black has made 2 developing moves to white's 1. I think it's not played at the master level in part to the higher level players wanting to achieve positions which have few drawbacks, yet retain many possibilities to win.
Just some rough thoughts...
~Jerry~
Fiveofswords wrote:
do you really think Ng1 makes any sense?
Ng1 is the main line, when white tries to get an initiative based on black's loose position and white's center.
Just one example, from CB10: Spassky v. Karpov, 1982, C38. GMs do play the KG.
Jun 1, 2010
0
#19
Oozecube, if you're looking for games, I put together a pgn file with over 900 King's Gambit games from top players. I was mainly interested in games from the 1800s and early portion of the 1900s (lots of games from Keres, Lasker, Alekhine, etc.), but I also included some more recent players, including Joseph Gallagher (60 King's Gambit games in my file), David Bronstein (43 games), Alexei Fedorov (35 games), Boris Spassky (32 games), Bobby Fischer (19 games), Judit Polgar (19 games), Zsofia Polgar (15 games), and Nigel Short (13 games).
Let me know if you're interested and we'll figure out some way I can post the file so you can have it. I have all the games arranged by player, so it's easy to advance through one person's games-- handy for those of us that like the King's Gambit. I've got another pgn file with about 9500 King's Gambit games, but the smaller one with my hand-picked top players is my favorite.
--Cystem
I enjoy playing the King's Gambit, and recently realized that few masters and (to the best of my knowledge) no grandmasters play it. I was wondering why that is. Is there a line of it which is unsound?