Decline it with 2.f4 Bc5
if black takes the pawn u win with Qh4
if he doesn't u get a game similar in sum variations to the italian with white unable to castle on the kingside and a pawn on f4 u can then develop normally as there are no complex 'traps' black can fall into but white can.
2...ef 3. nf3 d6
What you are playing is what I play against the Kings gambit and in my opinion means you are just winning by a pawn, if you don't like the lines that it goes into then perhaps try the Falkbeer as Estragon said or decline it with Bc5 as manikcharan said.
If you dont like irrational positions then perhaps a declined line is better for you or the modern var in the accepted line : 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 d5 4 exd5 Nf6 ... I used to like the modern and only abandoned it when I decided to take the bull by the horns and play 3... g5 !! in the accepted lines......
As a King's Gambit player, the two lines I least like to play against are the two that Reb mentioned:
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3
3...d5 (Modern Variation)
3...g5 (Classical Variation)
The Modern doesn't lead to the same kind of positions as the other lines in general, I think Black is not as cramped and has easy development. The g5 line is just tough because Black holds onto the pawn and so White has to come up with something.
The line played by the OP (Fischer Defence), ok, Fischer might have thought it was good but seriously I LOVE seeing that move as White. Black needs to play d5 and not d6, then he has good chances.
Oh, and I don't recommend the declined line 2...Bc5. The trap is well-known and now your bishop is just going to give White a tempo at some point soon when he plays d4.
The Falkbeer someone mentioned, that's worth a look perhaps as well.
I think the falkbeer is the right opening for ya! I play King's gambit by my own(Yesterday!) and I think it's really anoying to play against it(the falkbeer) because then white can't play as agressive as in the other lines( I play C33)! I played draw against the falkbeer yesterday
many good recommendations here:) some lines are less complicated than others but the kings gambiteer can always make the game really complicated whatever you do. there goes a saying that if you want to play 1...e5 you better prepare for the kings gambit first and decide how you feel about it. its even playable at supergmlevel to a degree, its just not in fashion now
I have the answer for you:
watch this Dzindzi lecture on KG
Basically he says that KG sucks and for Black is a piece of cake to equalize vs this opening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGJgQXtUqdM
I have the answer for you:
watch this Dzindzi lecture on KG
Basically he says that KG sucks and for Black is a piece of cake to equalize vs this opening.
I would like to see him try and tell Spassky that !
Claiming it 'sucks' is a bit of an over statement.
Black has numerous ways to gain equality and after that it's a chess game. White maintains winning chances in lines such as The Mason Gambit and also in the Nf6 line of the Kieseritzky Gambit. The d6 variation of the Kieseritzky is a bit problematic for white to avoid drawing positions and the Bishop gambit still maintains some sting that allows white to play for the win.
Engine evaluations are probably not to be trusted in most of these lines and pragmatic otb play for Black is not as straightforward as it seems.
I'm merely reporting the opinion of GM Roman Dzindzichashvili ...
I have the answer for you:
watch this Dzindzi lecture on KG
Basically he says that KG sucks and for Black is a piece of cake to equalize vs this opening.
I would like to see him try and tell Spassky that !
He says that the Romantic players used the KG because they were poor ignorant souls, and that Bronstein and Spassky in their career for each KG played 100 more solid openings
I have the answer for you:
watch this Dzindzi lecture on KG
Basically he says that KG sucks and for Black is a piece of cake to equalize vs this opening.
I would like to see him try and tell Spassky that !
He says that the Romantic players used the KG because they were poor ignorant souls, and that Bronstein and Spassky in their career for each KG played 100 more solid openings
you shouldnt listen to much to roman:) kings gambit is still winning crushing games at top level in 2010
I have the answer for you:
watch this Dzindzi lecture on KG
Basically he says that KG sucks and for Black is a piece of cake to equalize vs this opening.
I would like to see him try and tell Spassky that !
He says that the Romantic players used the KG because they were poor ignorant souls, and that Bronstein and Spassky in their career for each KG played 100 more solid openings
you shouldnt listen to much to roman:) kings gambit is still winning crushing games at top level in 2010
That is not true. At top level it mostly peters out to draws.
See: Nakamura v Ivanchuk.
the problem is that could be said about all openings. see magnus carlsen vs wang yue 2010 and he didnt even go for the bishopgambit
BTW the Dzindzi line is to accept the gambit and then play Be7 ...
black to move. in this line, what are good moves here or what would you play as black. possibilities that i see are bc5, bd6, or c6
i have decided that in the time controls that i play(1 or 5 min), anything that makes me push g5 is dangerous to play with the given time.
thanks for the suggestions. i will analyze all of them and try each one multiple times. king's gambit is such a headache against e5
if some one plays the king's gambit, i usually end up with a loss. the position just seems kind of wild. I usually accept the king's gambit, with 1 e4 e5, f4 exf4, nf3 d6, going into the fischer defence.
could you guys give me some alternatives and there advantages/disadvantages.
ive seen really good player play awfully against this opening.
final thing, disregard my rating