As bobby Fischer said its busted.
King's Gambit
Bobby Fischer was a supreme chess psychologist ... he said he "busted" it, and then continued to play it and bust others! No, the KG is alive and well, and is a great weapon, especially against the unwary.
Fisher busted the Kings Knights Gambit (1: e4 e5 2: f4!? exf3 3: Nf3??). He later used the Kings Bishop Gambit (1: e4 e5 2: f4!? exf4 3: Bc4!).
It is not considered theoretical sound, since black got the choice of either giving back the pawn with equality and a not-so-sharp position, or he can keep the pawn, getting an extremely sharp position. From a practically point of view, it is acceptable.
I love The Kings Gambit!
One day, soon, everything will become so clear !
jempty_method wrote:
This topic's been a bit beaten to death, I searched google of all places and found another one on here from a couple of years ago.
Well, until they come up with a whole bunch of new openings, there is going to be repetition.
If we complain about people resurrecting old threads from years ago, we can't really complain too much when they begin new topics on those subjects instead.
jempty_method wrote:
In that game in the World Championship he lost to Spassky, did he even try his own "refutation"?
He looked for it because of that game, his 'bust' was published afterwards.
Computers have proven the the king's gambit is a forced draw.
jempty_method wrote:
This topic's been a bit beaten to death, I searched google of all places and found another one on here from a couple of years ago. I tried finding a quote I read a week or two ago (but didn't bookmark) that said the only reason the Kings Gambit is playable is that Black has a half dozen good ways to respond, but can only play one of them at a time. Myself, I've been responding to 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 for 35+ years with 3...Be7 with nice results, the key being usually (but not always) to reject ...Bh4+?! in favor of more development with ...Nf6. To each his or her own though.
3...Be7 and 3...d6 is what I see. I played a game 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Qh4+ 3.g3 Qe7 as white and it confused me.
For a long time the Cunningham (3...Be7) was considered the best response to the KGA. I have no idea whether that still holds true, but I like to play against it as White because the positions reached are often novel and the game turns pretty tactical on a dime.
I cannot say whether or not the King's Gambit is a good opening. There is no official refutation. Though the Nf3 variation is becoming less popular, I have still seen Alexi Shirov play it with success. Personally, I play the King's Gambit because I enjoy tactical, double-edged positions. It also avoids the theory people may have on the Ruy Lopez.
3...Be7 is an interesting defense. Though I would never play it in a tournament, I very much like the "4 pawns gambit".
It's all a matter of taste. I believe it's a viable opening choice for an aggressive player.
I see nothing wrong with playing it. The only way you're going to "bust it" is by memorizing 20+ moves of theory and playing like a GM the rest of the way lol.
The king's gambit is not sound. You take risk for nothing. You have to be ready for the declined, the fischer defence, d5, g5 variations. It is an excellent opening for blitz games, but for long play it is not good. You may have a good win with it if your opponent does not know how to play it, but otherwise it is not give any advantage for white, and even you may lose the game easily.
"The King's Gambit is an attacking opening". Have you ever heard this before? I know i have. Why can't an attacking player attack with the Ruy Lopez, the Italian, the Scotch or the Four Knights? It is also funny to see some players here in blitz play the King's Gambit but then i find them trying to win a pawn or recover the lost pawn. If this is why they play the King's Gambit it's probably better to play other opening.
After 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 exf4 4.Nf3 Nf6 guess what move was played against me 95% of the time? 5.c4, of course, playing to defend the d5 pawn.
BattleManager wrote:
"The King's Gambit is an attacking opening". Have you ever heard this before? I know i have. Why can't an attacking player attack with the Ruy Lopez, the Italian, the Scotch or the Four Knights? It is also funny to see some players here in blitz play the King's Gambit but then i find them trying to win a pawn or recover the lost pawn. If this is why they play the King's Gambit it's probably better to play other opening.
After 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 exf4 4.Nf3 Nf6 guess what move was played against me 95% of the time? 5.c4, of course, playing to defend the d5 pawn.
The attacking player can't guarantee the opponent will choose a defensive position that allows tactical, exciting gameplay from those openings. As Spassky said, the King's Gambit doesn't give White that much, but neither does the Ruy Lopez or the Italian. And there's always the possibility that Black replies with something like the Philidor (which could be aggressive, but Black can decide if it will be). The gambit is the impatient player's way of all but forcing aggressive gameplay.
There are other reasons though. Someone might just like the kinds of positions that arise from the King's Gambit as opposed to those other e4 openings. Nothing wrong with that.
-BEES- wrote:
BattleManager wrote:
"The King's Gambit is an attacking opening". Have you ever heard this before? I know i have. Why can't an attacking player attack with the Ruy Lopez, the Italian, the Scotch or the Four Knights? It is also funny to see some players here in blitz play the King's Gambit but then i find them trying to win a pawn or recover the lost pawn. If this is why they play the King's Gambit it's probably better to play other opening.
After 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 exf4 4.Nf3 Nf6 guess what move was played against me 95% of the time? 5.c4, of course, playing to defend the d5 pawn.
The attacking player can't guarantee the opponent will choose a defensive position that allows tactical, exciting gameplay from those openings. As Spassky said, the King's Gambit doesn't give White that much, but neither does the Ruy Lopez or the Italian. And there's always the possibility that Black replies with something like the Philidor (which could be aggressive, but Black can decide if it will be). The gambit is the impatient player's way of all but forcing aggressive gameplay.
There are other reasons though. Someone might just like the kinds of positions that arise from the King's Gambit as opposed to those other e4 openings. Nothing wrong with that.
Nothing wrong, of course. But a lot of people tend to think and say that the King's Gambit is the most aggressive continuation after 1.e4 e5. Not necessarily. Liking the arising positions is a different story. And i was also particularly talking to those Kings Gambiteer's who play things like the 5.c4 above.
Thank you for the replies! Howeve, I play the KBG "King's Bishop's Gambit" which (in my opinion) is much better than the KNG "King's Knight's Gambit". Please keep the comments coming!
This post is open for discussion about the King's Gambit. In your opinion, is it a good opening?What makes it sound? What makes it unsound? From my experience it is my favorite opening and I love it, but again, this post is open for discussion . Please post your thoughts/comments about this post/King's Gambit.