Kings Gambit is a good opening at 800s. Very few people will defend it properly. If you know how to play it you will have a huge advantage.
Kings Gambit at Low Elo
Sort:
I'd say it stops being useful around a 1000 and some 900 players will know how to equalize.
You can play King's Gambit even at grandmaster level. Several grandmasters play it occasionally mostly as a surprise. In short time controls it is even more playable. It is not really sound, so you will not see it in a world championship or candidates' tournament in classical time control.
Dec 11, 2021
0
#5
alright, my chess club is around 600-1200 elo, is it worth learning, or should I spend my time on the queens gambit.
I would learn it. I played Kings Gambit a lot at this level. The concept isn't dissimilar to Queen's gambit (trade a flank pawn for a center pawn) but it has some more venom because of the weaker kings side.
WoodyTBeagle skrev:
Kings Gambit is a good opening at 800s. Very few people will defend it properly. If you know how to play it you will have a huge advantage.
Im 1400-1500 and I dont know how to punish someone playing king gambit.
To be honest i dont like to face king gambit.
But my thinking is that they gambit the pawn so they can have a stronger attack on the kingside, wouldnt it then make a lot of sense to castle queen side?
Also if i take the F pawn i usally not defend my extra pawn because then you will go in to very difficulty position where the other person usally know way more theory.
tygxc wrote:
You can play King's Gambit even at grandmaster level. Several grandmasters play it occasionally mostly as a surprise. In short time controls it is even more playable. It is not really sound, so you will not see it in a world championship or candidates' tournament in classical time control.
Yes - of course. It's not a bad opening at all - just can be equalized by stronger players.
Dec 11, 2021
0
#9
what about the birds opening. isnt the overall concept the same, weakening the kings side for a stronger kings side attack?
The King's Gambit...
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/the-kings-gambit
The Vienna Gambit is considered by many to be an improved version of the King's Gambit...
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/introduction-to-the-vienna-game-gambit
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell
Jimemy wrote:
WoodyTBeagle skrev:
Kings Gambit is a good opening at 800s. Very few people will defend it properly. If you know how to play it you will have a huge advantage.
Im 1400-1500 and I dont know how to punish someone playing king gambit.
To be honest i dont like to face king gambit.
But my thinking is that they gambit the pawn so they can have a stronger attack on the kingside, wouldnt it then make a lot of sense to castle queen side?
Also if i take the F pawn i usally not defend my extra pawn because then you will go in to very difficulty position where the other person usally know way more theory.
I don't think it's unsound at these levels at all - just that it ceases to be a huge advantage as black can equalize. I don't think it puts White in a bad position with decent play on both sides at all.
#5
Objectively the Queen's Gambit is a better opening, as black cannot hold the c4-pawn and as Queen's Gambit does not weaken the position of your own king.
Below grandmaster level the opening does not matter.
It is better to play a bad opening well than to play a good opening badly.
#11
"The King's Gambit loses by force" - Fischer
"I have not found a way to equalise as white" - Kramnik
You guys seem to be under the illusion that opening a matter at our level
tygxc wrote:
It is better to play a bad opening well than to play a good opening badly.
That is for certain.
Dec 11, 2021
0
#16
Fair enough, I read opening books for fun, so I figured I might as well capitalize on the knowledge I gain,
M1m1c15 wrote:
You guys seem to be under the illusion that opening a matter at our level
Of course it can matter. I've used all kinds of openings to take opponents out of their game and off guard. How many people have been ripped apart by a well timed fried liver attack?
All you have to do is not blunder, openings are just needless complexity until you get to higher ratings
#17
Problem is: you can rip apart weak players with a fried liver attack, but you learn nothing from that and you would have beaten them anyway with any other opening. It does not help against stronger players, against whom you need most help.
You should approach each game as if you were playing against Magnus Carlsen. That way you learn from each game something that is useful against later, stronger opponents.
tygxc wrote:
#17
Problem is: you can rip apart weak players with a fried liver attack, but you learn nothing from that and you would have beaten them anyway with any other opening. It does not help against stronger players, against whom you need most help.
You should approach each game as if you were playing against Magnus Carlsen. That way you learn from each game something that is useful against later, stronger opponents.
Nonsense. I learn new positions, new defenses, new attacks and counter attacks with every opening I study. Fried liver stops being effective after a while, and that too is something to learn. But this nonsense trope that learning openings doesn't teach you how to play chess is all a bunch of nonsense. The game doesn't end after 5 - 10 moves or whatever.
I have read that the kings gambit is a bit of a unsound opening, but at my elo, I dont see many people capitalizing on the pawn advantage, and from what I can see, most people dont take advantage of its weaknesses? If this is stupid, forgive me, im just a 850 elo player.