king's gambit vs queen's gambit which is better?

Sort:
Avatar of forsakenpilot
blueemu wrote:
 

OH COME ON DON'T LEAVE US HANGING!!

Avatar of blueemu

That was an Alekhine game.

Alekhine vs Some Pooch.

Avatar of forsakenpilot

??

Avatar of chesssblackbelt

I can't see any titled player today playing h6 there. Such a lazy blunder

Avatar of i-AGC

dude that was 100 years ago, probably an amateur playing up to my GOAT alekhine

Avatar of chesssblackbelt

Why's the world champion playing an amateur though. It must be another “GM” lol

Avatar of i-AGC

"GM" back then is like 1900 now...

Avatar of FatRatScat
i-AGC wrote:
FatRatScat wrote:

" A gambit is where you sacrifice a pawn in order to get a lost game " said somebody.

You've probably lost to a gambit, that's just false.

Lighten up .It's a quote somebody made about gambits and can't remember who said it. It's supposed to satirical, not serious...or I assume. One point, "lost game" is a game that is lost if both players play perfectly. So, yes, one can lose a "won game" and win a " lost game". Another point, I love playing gambits, and been known to win sometimes.

Avatar of FatRatScat

Boris Spassky beat Anatoly Karpov with a king's gambit at Bundesliga 1982-83.

Avatar of blueemu
chesssblackbelt wrote:

Why's the world champion playing an amateur though. It must be another “GM” lol

I played Tal back in 1988 at the World Open in Saint John.

Does that mean that I must be a GM?

Avatar of chesssblackbelt

If it's not a serious game then why even study it

Avatar of forsakenpilot
blueemu wrote:
chesssblackbelt wrote:

Why's the world champion playing an amateur though. It must be another “GM” lol

I played Tal back in 1988 at the World Open in Saint John.

Does that mean that I must be a GM?

wait, how are you red?? i thought you could only post in white!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Avatar of forsakenpilot
chesssblackbelt wrote:

If it's not a serious game then why even study it

chillin is serious business

Avatar of blueemu
chesssblackbelt wrote:

If it's not a serious game then why even study it

It's just a game until somebody loses an eye.

... then it's a sport.

Avatar of forsakenpilot
blueemu wrote:
chesssblackbelt wrote:

If it's not a serious game then why even study it

It's just a game until somebody loses an eye.

... then it's a sport.

fencing:

Avatar of FatRatScat
blueemu wrote:
chesssblackbelt wrote:

Why's the world champion playing an amateur though. It must be another “GM” lol

I played Tal back in 1988 at the World Open in Saint John.

Does that mean that I must be a GM?

The tournament was not the World Open;It was the Saint John Open. If you played Tal then, it appears you are either an IM or a GM

Avatar of chesssblackbelt

Think it was a simul

Avatar of blueemu
chesssblackbelt wrote:

Think it was a simul

Correct.

Avatar of The-Cream

KID

Avatar of blueemu
FatRatScat wrote:
blueemu wrote:
chesssblackbelt wrote:

Why's the world champion playing an amateur though. It must be another “GM” lol

I played Tal back in 1988 at the World Open in Saint John.

Does that mean that I must be a GM?

The tournament was not the World Open;It was the Saint John Open. If you played Tal then, it appears you are either an IM or a GM

It was called the World Chess Festival.

It included the World Blitz Championship, and one stage of the Candidates Matches. I recall that Yusupov got eliminated, and then took off all his clothes and ran around his hotel until he was caught and "pacified". The Festival also included two Open events and several simuls.