I don't know whether White is losing, but White is the one struggling for equality in the King's Gambit. According to the Chessbase.com database, Black actually has a plus score after 2.f4?!/?
Why would anyone play an opening where Black has both a practical and theoretical edge after only two moves? The King's Gambit has historically offered White good practical chances, but that's just not true anymore.
The King's Gambit is a tough row to hoe at the grandmaster level.
Sure, Spassky played it but rarely and that was before all the analysis and the computers since then. Even GM Joe Gallagher, who wrote "Winning with the King's Gambit" in 1993 doesn't play it anymore.
But it still looks like a great weapon for class players. Here are the stats from the Slow Chess League archive:
Games %Win %Draw %Loss
31 [0.77 0.00 0.23] King's Gambit Declined
30 [0.60 0.13 0.27] King's Gambit Accepted
It's not hard to understand why. A lot of class players get by in the opening with commonsense moves but the KG easily leads to bizarre positions where commonsense doesn't apply so well and both players have to wing it.
This situation will favor White who chose the opening, has more familiarity, and presumably is a tactical player.
IMO the King's Gambit is a great counter-argument to the trite old advice that class players shouldn't bother learning openings and just rely on bromides about center pawns, knights before bishops, castle your king and connect your rooks.
Are there any enthusiasts for the Open Ruy here?
I never met anyone who played it even in blitz.
I used to play it around 1984-6
If I played 1...e5, I'd give the Open Ruy a go.
Heck, I'd like to take a crack at the Schliemann some day.
...
I don't know when the Open variation had its heyday, but it was over by the 1960s. The Open is an OK alternative to the Closed lines, but to my knowledge no White players fear it particularly, though they might, like Reb, prefer to lighten their theory load.
Actually, the Open had its heyday when Korchnoi was playing it in World Championships in the 1970s. That's also when Karpov busted on it, so its heyday coincided precisely with its decline.
SmyslovFan: I often find your pronouncements dubious. Your claim that the the Open had its heyday when Korchnoi played it against Karpov struck me as another one of those.
Last night I happened to run across a quote from Smyslov himself while browsing Game 8 of "My Best Games" in which Botvinnik played the Open against Smyslov in 1943.
[These moves lead] to the Open Variation of the Ruy Lopez, which has enjoyed great popularity in the past.
In spite of the evolution of opening ideas, this system of defense has stood the test of time.
In choosing this old method of development in this game, grandmaster Botvinnik intended to put to the test a new continuation which up to that time had not been met in tournaments in the USSR.
--Vasily Smyslov "My Best Games of Chess 1935-1957" p. 18
It's an interesting data point that Korchnoi played the Open in the seventies but I wouldn't mistake that for the Open "enjoy[ing] great popularity."
Ipcress, sure, the Open is an old system. But Korchnoi had just written the ECO section on the Open then tried to defend in the world championship. Everyone and their brother was analysing the Open Spanish at that point. That was the high water mark for the venerable system, even though it had been played before.
So Korchnoi plays the Open against Karpov, loses, and some analysts -- probably not many and certainly not "everyone and his brother" -- write some articles and that's a heyday?
Another dubious claim.
You could just as well say that the 1960s were the heyday of the King's Gambit because Spassky beat some top players and Fischer wrote a famous article "busting" it and other analysts chimed in.
By heyday, I had in mind a time when the Open was a popular opening in tournament play, as Smyslov describes.
Whatever. You've made up your mind.
Korchnoi didn't play the Open once in the match, it was one of his main weapons. He was the main defender of the line, and stuck to his guns by playing it in the World Championship match. All you would need to do to see whether people analysed it is to read the match reports.
But how does Korchnoi playing the Open, however many times, in one WC make that the "heyday" of the Open Variation?
You keep avoiding that question.
As you said, in your version of the Open "heyday," it ended just after it began -- which is not the usual understanding of "heyday."
I don't doubt people analysed the Open Variation for a season -- by all means cite a list of said analysts; I'm sure it's not "everyone and his brother" -- but again, that's not really a "heyday."
I would call the Korchnoi Open blip a modest, failed revival. Again, not a "heyday."
So because you disagree with me, you cast aspersions about everything I write?
I'm guessing you didn't bother to check to see who analysed the World Championship games of 1978, or the Candidates match of 1974. I'll give you some hints: Botvinnik wrote a book about the Candidates, Tri matcha Anatolya Karpova, and most of the living World Champions (with a really obvious notable exception) gave either live commentary or their written analysis for the World Championship in 1978.
You can find detailed analysis of each of the openings played in the 1978 match in most magazines from that period, and I'm willing to bet every chess club in Europe and America had experts analysing each game. So yes, I stand by the statement that "everyone and their brother" analysed it.
If you really wanted to nitpick, you would argue that there are far more extant GM games in the Open from the last decade than from any other decade. Of course, the problem with that is that there are far more games in every major opening now.
Again, sure, the Open was played during the war years (not often), and Korchnoi first started playing the Open back in the 1950s, along with other talents such as Stein. Korchnoi's freshly published analysis in ECO was tested in the World Championships. That sort of thing hadn't happened before.
The only previous time the Open Variation had featured in a World Championship Match was in the 1910 Lasker-Schlechter match.
But if you want to quibble about whether the 1970s or the 1950s or another decade was a better time for the Open Variation, have at it. And if you want to then state that all my findings are therefore dubious, that's your prerogative too.
Others can judge for themselves.
But how does Korchnoi playing the Open, however many times, in one WC make that the "heyday" of the Open Variation?
You keep avoiding that question.
As you said, in your version of the Open "heyday," it ended just after it began -- which is not the usual understanding of "heyday."
I don't doubt people analysed the Open Variation for a season -- by all means cite a list of said analysts; I'm sure it's not "everyone and his brother" -- but again, that's not really a "heyday."
I would call the Korchnoi Open blip a modest, failed revival. Again, not a "heyday."
Why don't you do the necessary research and figure out when its heyday was ?
Heydey of the Open Spanish was ~1946.
Heydey of the Open Spanish was ~1946.
How so ? Most popular then or played at the highest levels then , both ?
"Why don't you do the necessary research and figure out when its heyday was ?"
Reb: I did a web search as well as the book browsing.
I didn't find out as much as I would like to have, but I did cite no less an authority than Vasily Smyslov that the Open enjoyed "great popularity" prior to 1943, which is what I vaguely remembered from reading MCO-10 while I was in high school.
That seems a lot closer to the mark for a heyday than SmyslovFan's odd claim that the Open's heyday began and ended during Korchnoi's 1978 match with Karpov.
If you've got any ideas for where this might be better researched, I'm all ears. Chessgames.com includes a time graph for some opening variations but not, so far as I can tell, the Ruy Open.
SmyslovFan: Complaining that someone's mind is made up or is nitpicking or quibbling or is casting aspersions is usually a sign you are losing the argument.
A thought experiment: If this past year Anand had played the King's Gambit several times against Carlsen and been busted, while some number of analysts (surely not "everyone and his brother" however) had published analyses of the King's Gambit, would we say that 2014 was the heyday of the King's Gambit?
As SmyslovFan judges these things, we would.
I wouldn't.
That's the nitty-gritty of this debate.
The "heyday" of an opening is when it is played a lot at a high level leading to others of all abilities trying it, and when much new theory is worked out over the board and in analysis. And there you are.
There is no debate.
Ipcress, you say you find my pronouncements dubious, and use this as an example. I made an off-the-cuff remark about the Open Spanish, and you launch a full-fledged attack on me.
You were the one to use the word "heyday" first. I pointed out that Korchnoi playing the Open Variation in a World Championship after writing the key theoretical article on it for ECO was a high point for the opening. It was also a low point, because Karpov dismantled it.
To the best of my knowledge, the Karpov-Korchnoi match is just about unique in that one of the participants published analysis of an opening in ECO, the opening bible, just before the match then tested it in the match itself, and came up short in dramatic fashion.
EDIT: ADDED:
_______
Imagine if Spassky had played the King's Gambit against Fischer and Fischer responded with his "refutation", only for White to win! That's pretty much what happened in Karpov-Korchnoi in 1978.
________
There is no debate. There's just you nitpicking, using personal attacks and reductio ad absurdum forms of argumentation. For what purpose isn't really clear, except to disagree.
In that case there was no "best" and he should have resigned. Your opponent played badly and you took advantage of it nicely: I didn't see any chances for him in sacrificing his queen like that ... the moves you played seemed obvious and yet strong.
huh?? how can there be no best if one variation is evaluated at -3.00 and anither at -5.00? just admit it when you're wrong and move on. no need to be argumentative.
Ah, but Optimissed does have a need to be argumentative.