I recently played a series of three games against a higher ranked opponent, in all of which I tried using the king's gambit opening. The opponent immediately recognized the opening and accepted the gambit in each case. I thought to post the three games here, as they are instructive into some general approaches that work and do not work in employing this opening.
GAME 1. Here I started the king's gambit, only to be checked by black's black square bishop. In the ensuing exchange I lost all three king side pawns and weas forced to move my king, preventing a later castle. the cost to black? A single pawn. I remember thinking that the gambit was a disaster. however, an additional cost to black was in time, which allowed me to establish control of the center and advance most of my piecesinto play. Loss of the king side pawns made a king side attack on black, using both rooks, possible. The result, which I found surprising after the intieal lines of the game, was a resignation by black.
GAME 2. In my second attempt I thought to make the king's gambit even more effective by forestalling a ccheck from the black bishop. After acceptance of the gambit I used a pawn exchange and sacrificed another pawn to protect the position needed for the black bishop check. This was successful. But win the battle and lose the war. Essentially, black caught up in piece development by attacking my center pawn position and making favorable exchanges that evened the game and then swung it in black's favor. Ther result was a loss.
GAME 3. Learning some lessons from game 2 I resignedmyself to a bishoip check early. Instead of wasting pawns, I simply moved my king immediately and then established a dominant center position with well-developed pieces. This osition withstood attacks and exchanges worked out in my favor,leaving black with a cramped and defensive game. Though the result was a loss, this came from a disastrous blunder when the game was well in hand.
LESSONS AND QUESTIONS. White needs to capitalize on the accepted gambit by taking over the center and developing his pieces in preparation for an attack. White must resign himself to a check on the king side; it is unavoidable, but actually provides additional time for white to gain the upper hand in development. Black might benefit from a queen side castel following an attack on white's king side. Also, efforts must be made to keep up in development wherever possible, whether by advancing pawns and pieces or by trading pieces that are key to white's position. Anyway, I thought looking at some variations of the king's gambit from the same players and analyzing the consequences of early decisions could be useful to players here, whether using or responding to this opening.
You need to fix your diagrams. All they are are placeholders.
i actually didn't get much, but im not a big fan of king's gambit anyway, it's a bit premature attacking, it can work on weak oppoenents, but against stronger ones, it would fail, specially if black uses fischer's defense or falkbeer counter gambit against it. 2 Nf3 is positionally better after 1...e5, you can always try 2 d4 after 1...e5 but again against strong opponents it won't succeed that often.
Yes Diagrams not working at the moment
Thanks, Jason. I'll look into those defenses. Just hoping to explore the opening, including strengths and weaknesses. I'm a novice to becoming a student of the game. It does not seem like there are many fans of this opening(?).
Sorry about the diagrams. I think they are up properly now.
I play King's Gambit, it's good :P You played 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7 4. d4 in the first game, I think that the book line is Bc4. If he gives the check, you go Kf1.
Your analysis for game two is entirely wrong. Black caught up in development because you wasted time moving your N and B back and fourth, and black won because you hung your queen.
Thanks and I see what you mean, RainbowRising. There are a lot of wasted N and B moves there! The queen hang was an unfortunate blunder near the end.
Is this to prevent ... d5?
I play the King's Gambit occasionally. I like the line 1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef 3. Bc4. If black checks with the Queen, Kf1 and Nf3 chases the Queen away. However, there are several good 3rd moves when black accepts the gambit. 3.Nf3 is pretty common.
Keep playing the KG, if you can become good with it it is a dangerous weapon!
In my experience (played the KG as white for a while, and often playing against it as black) the KG becomes really dangerous if the white is prepared to sac more material. Otherwise the black will be pretty comfortable.
I thought the discussion and the narrative were both really interesting, and thanks. I agree with electricpawn, that if B is determined to check on h4 there's no good way of stopping them, so if you play the same opponent again the line with 3.Bc4 lets him have his check (with the Q) but then makes him pay for it with his wasted tempi after your Nf3.
That's the Hungarian Defense, if I am correct...I usually develop the knight, then bshop enabling me to move King to f1 instead of e2, taking the pawn on f4 with Bishop later and transferring King to g2 and rook to f1.
The Hungarian is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf4 Nc6 3. Bc4 Be7
The line I think you have in mind (1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7) is the Cunningham Defence.
I think it's to free f1 for the king.
Sorry I meant 2.Nf3, of course.
You can also play (1 e4 e5 2 f4 ef 3 Nf3 Be7) 4 Bc4 Bh4+ 5 g3 fg 6 O-O gh+ 7 Kh1, the Three Pawns Gambit (a favorite of Morphy-era players).
I'll have to look that sequence over, but thanks for the heads up on the line.
I see then why one might play the bishop first, making a queen check at h4 more tempting. Nf3 starts a chase after the queen that could also buy additional time for development. Thanks for the comment.