Is the King's Gambit no longer fun?

Sort:
Avatar of mpaetz
dorthcaar wrote:

You might wanna read this;

A BUST TO THE KING'S GAMBIT
by U.S. Champion Bobby Fischer

International Grandmaster

http://brooklyn64.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/a-bust-to-the-kings-gambit.pdf

     The same year Fischer wrote this Spassky beat him using the King's Gambit. Spassky also won a famous game--used in the James Bond film "From Russia with Love"--vs Bronstein that same year, and years later sprung it on Karpov, beating him too.

     GMs rarely use it as theory gives it no advantage for white, and most of them prefer quieter openings where white takes less risk. Ironically, the computers say black's best reply is probably the Falkbeer counter-gambit, rarely seen in GM play for the same reasons.

     It is a perfectly reasonable opening at lower levels.

     

Avatar of goldenbeer
It’s really bad. Don’t play it. Everyone knows mature lines, and if they survive opening you will lose. if you want to go after a side line, then you should use engine very deeply before the game. Even then in long games it’s not possible to count on it.
Avatar of DefenderPug2

I’m getting interested in center game and Scandinavian defense.

Avatar of dorthcaar
mpaetz wrote:
dorthcaar wrote:

You might wanna read this;

A BUST TO THE KING'S GAMBIT
by U.S. Champion Bobby Fischer

International Grandmaster

http://brooklyn64.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/a-bust-to-the-kings-gambit.pdf

     The same year Fischer wrote this Spassky beat him using the King's Gambit. Spassky also won a famous game--used in the James Bond film "From Russia with Love"--vs Bronstein that same year, and years later sprung it on Karpov, beating him too.

     GMs rarely use it as theory gives it no advantage for white, and most of them prefer quieter openings where white takes less risk. Ironically, the computers say black's best reply is probably the Falkbeer counter-gambit, rarely seen in GM play for the same reasons.

     It is a perfectly reasonable opening at lower levels.

     

Fischer must have gone mad.. especially after publishing this and getting busted like that grin.png I need to review those games.

Thanks for the history class tongue.png

Avatar of dorthcaar

Russian Chess School probably studied this paper heavily and understood his mindset and found weaknesses.. It's like capturing enemy weapon schematics and building blueprints grin.png they knew exactly where to strike..

Poor fischer.. he became madman for a reason it seems tongue.png

Avatar of darkunorthodox88

KG has suffered the same fate as the closed sicilian for white, it is still viable but modern theory has defanged these openings from a lot of their old poison, not making them as appealing. That does not mean they are harmless in the least however, its just black has found more reliable ways to tame them if they are so inclined.

But even then, stuff like this does happen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b6km10Q4aU

Avatar of kartikeya_tiwari

As long as you are not a top GM who has studied KG in great detail it doens't matter. KG is absolutely fine and perfectly playable for all but the top 200 chess players in the world in classical chess.

Avatar of tygxc

#30
No, Fischer lost to Spassky and after that he analysed and published his refutation.


Avatar of RussBell

The King's Gambit..

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/the-kings-gambit

Avatar of dorthcaar
tygxc wrote:

#30
No, Fischer lost to Spassky and after that he analysed and published his refutation.

hmm, that changes things..

So that proves how obbsessive he was about chess. This reminded me Beth Harmon in the tv serie. She was mad about her defeat and she was obsessively thinking why she lost..

Human brain tends to forget things which gives pain.. as a defense mechanism. But these are different type of brains.. I wonder the motivation behind it.

Avatar of Marcyful
dorthcaar wrote:
tygxc wrote:

#30
No, Fischer lost to Spassky and after that he analysed and published his refutation.

hmm, that changes things..

So that proves how obbsessive he was about chess. This reminded me Beth Harmon in the tv serie. She was mad about her defeat and she was obsessively thinking why she lost..

Human brain tends to forget things which gives pain.. as a defense mechanism. But these are different type of brains.. I wonder the motivation behind it.

Its what happens when people are very invested in one thing and that one thing is also what they are known for worldwide. Even just one painful loss in their career could haunt them for months, years even.

Avatar of TheChessIntellectReturns
DrJetlag wrote:

Are you saying we shouldn't play what Magnus plays?

 

 

only Dr Nykerstein (on lichess, thats magnus' username) could play f6 on the 4th move versus a GM level player and still win. 

Avatar of TheChessIntellectReturns
tygxc wrote:

#30
No, Fischer lost to Spassky and after that he analysed and published his refutation.


fischer may have lost to spassky, but not because he played the kings gambit.