Everyone laugh at me. I just tried to refute, with extreme violence, the nordwaller variation of the KG. That's the one with 2. ... Qf6. A really hateful variation, totally annoying, but not really dangerous. Well, I decided to sac two pieces and a rook in making a lightning-fast retaliatory attack on his king.
It didn't work. That sort of thing never works. It could've worked, if I'd had one or two more tempi, but I didn't have one or two more tempi.
Let this be a lesson to everybody who wants to try and pummel early queen development... and I blame the people in those threads for inspiring my insane stupidity in this game 🙂
Game 678591 😲
You know, I think that's the only reason people play the stupid nordwaller. Because they know us KG freaks have short-fuses and will start throwing pieces at the king on the slightest provocation, which Qf6 undoubtedly is.
Huh, Soltis gives that knight sac as best in his book on the KGD. It looks like Tony's game was going quite well until the desparado sequence went horribly horribly wrong
Actually, does anyone have fritz, and feel like devoting it to a good cause? Like, say, analyzing 1. e4 e5 2. f4 Qf6 3. Nf3 Qxf4 4. Nc3 Bb4 5. Bc4 Bxc3 6. 0-0 ? Which is Soltis's reccomended line (which tony reached by transposition). It would be great and a wonderful service to KG players worldwide if someone kicked that around with Fritz for a bit :-)
In fact, anyone wanna play a few (unrated) nordwaller games with me? I want to try a new move. 1. e4 e5 2. f4 Qf6 3. d4!? With the idea that 3. ... exd4 4. e5 wins the pawn back with a lock on the center for white, while 3. exf4 Nf6 transposes back into something resembling normal KG play.
Hmm?
(der bringer, which is about 200 elo weaker than fritz, but still pretty damn strong, seems to like my suggestion a little: after 1. e4 e5 2. f4 Qf6 3. d4 exd4 4. e5 it suggests 4. ...Qg6 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. Nxd4 Nxd4 7. Qxd4 Qxc2 8. Nc3 Be7 9. Be2 b6 10. Bf3 Bc5 11. Qd2 Qxd2+ 12. Bxd2 c6 whereupon black had, according to it, a quarter-pawn advantage, which I'm willing to live with. Then again, I didn't give it much calculation time.
If you want to improve your chess, do not play an opening that has been proven to be unsound for the past 100 years, ie: the King's Gambit. I know you will flame me about this, but Paul, if you really wanna improve your game, you have to let go of that opening. Very few GM's play it, and those who do, see complex sacking variations, this is not an average player friendly opening.
Originally posted by mateuloseIf you know refutation of the KG, could you please share it with us. If you don't - why is KG unsound?
If you want to improve your chess, do not play an opening that has been proven to be unsound for the past 100 years, ie: the King's Gambit. I know you will flame me about this, but Paul, if you really wanna improve your game, you have to let go of that opening. Very few GM's play it, and those who do, see complex sacking variations, this is not an average player friendly opening.
Originally posted by mateuloseahem.
If you want to improve your chess, do not play an opening that has been proven to be unsound for the past 100 years, ie: the King's Gambit. I know you will flame me about this, but Paul, if you really wanna improve your game, you have to let go of that opening. Very few GM's play it, and those who do, see complex sacking variations, this is not an average player friendly opening.
Spassky-Fischer 1960
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 Nf6 6. d4 d6 7. Nd3 Nxe4 8. Bxf4 Bg7 9. Nc3 $6 9... Nxc3 10. bxc3 10... c5 11. Be2 cxd4 12. O-O Nc6 13. Bxg4 O-O 14. Bxc8 Rxc8 15. Qg4 15... f5 $15 16. Qg3 dxc3 17. Rae1 Kh8 18. Kh1 Rg8 19. Bxd6 Bf8 20. Be5+ Nxe5 21. Qxe5+ Rg7 22. Rxf5 Qxh4+ 23. Kg1 23... Qg4 24. Rf2 Be7 25. Re4 Qg5 26. Qd4 Rf8 27. Re5 Rd8 28. Qe4 Qh4 29. Rf4 1-0
Spassky-Karpov 1982
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 h6 5. d4 g5 6. O-O Bg7 7. g3 g4
8. Nh4 f3 9. Nc3 Nc6 10. Be3 Nf6 11. Qd2 Nxe4 12. Nxe4 d5 13. Nc3 dxc4
14. Rae1 O-O 15. d5 Ne7 16. Bxh6 Ng6 17. Nxg6 fxg6 18. Bxg7 Kxg7 19. Qd4+ Qf6 20. Re7+ Kg8 21. Qxf6 Rxf6 22. Rxc7 Bf5 23. Rxc4 Re8 24. h3 Bxc2 25. Rd4 gxh3 26. Kh2 f2 27. Kxh3 Re1 28. Kg2 Rxf1 29. Kxf1 Rf3 30. Rd2 Bd3+ 31. Rxd3 Rxd3 32. Kxf2 Kf7 33. g4 Rd2+ 34. Ke3 Rxb2 35. Kd4 Ke7 36. Ke5 Rg2 37. d6+ Kd8 38. Kf4 Kd7 39. Ne4 Rxa2 40. Ke5 Ra5+ 41. Kf6 b5 42. Nc5+ Kxd6 43. Nb7+ Kc7 44. Nxa5 Kb6 45. Nb3 a5 46. Kxg6 a4 47. Nd2 Kc5 48. Kf5 Kb4 49. g5 a3 50. g6 a2 51. g7 a1=Q 52. g8=Q Qd4 53. Ne4 Ka3 54. Qa8+ Kb2 55. Qa6 b4 56. Qe2+ Ka3 57. Nd2 b3 58. Nb1+ Kb4 59. Qe1+ Ka4 60. Nc3+ Ka5 61. Ne2+ Qb4 62. Qa1+ Kb6 63. Qb2 Qc5+ 64. Kf4 Qc4+ 65. Ke3 Qc5+ 66. Nd4 Qe7+ 67. Kd3 Qb4 68. Nxb3 Qb5+ 69. Ke4 Qb4+ 70. Ke3 Qe7+ 71. Kd3 Qh7+ 72. Kc3 Qh3+ 73. Kb4 Qd7 74. Qf2+ Kc7 75. Nc5 Qe7 76. Qg3+ Kc6 77. Qg2+ Kb6 78. Qg6+ Kc7 79. Kb5 Qe2+ 80. Nd3 Qe7 81. Qc6+ Kd8 82. Qa8+ Kc7 83. Qa7+ Kd8 84. Qb8+ 1-0
Short-Akopian, 1997
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. d4 g5 5. h4 g4 6. Ng1 Bh6 7. Nc3 c6 8. Nge2 Qf6 9. g3 fxg3 10. Nxg3 Bxc1 11. Rxc1 Qh6 12. Bd3 Qe3+ 13. Nce2 Ne7 14. Qd2 Qxd2+ 15. Kxd2 d5 16. Rce1 Be6 17. Nf4 O-O 18. exd5 Nxd5 19. Nxe6 fxe6 20. Rxe6 Nd7 21. Nf5 Kh8 22. Rf1 Rae8 23. Rxe8 Rxe8 24. c4 N5f6 25. Ng3 c5 26. d5 Kg7 27. Nf5+ Kh8 28. Nd6 Rf8 29. Re1 g3 30. Bf5 Nb6 31. b3 Ne8 32. Nxb7 Ng7 33. Bh3 Rf4 34. Nxc5 Rxh4 35. Bg2 Rh2 36. Re2 Nf5 37. Be4 Nd6 38. Bf3 Rh6 39. Ne6 Rf6
40. Bg2 Nd7 41. c5 Nf7 42. d6 Nfe5 43. Bd5 Rf5 44. c6 Nb6 45. Bg2 Rf2 46. Rxf2 gxf2 47. Ke2 1-0
Originally posted by TovMauzerMany of the great chess players have written books critiquing it. I have rarely seen it in tournaments. It's an opening of the 1500's, 500 years ago, that was later proven unsound, white essentially gives up a pawn and nothing else. Read books such as "Sickbed of the king's gambit". Heck, read MCO 14, and they critique this opening from the begining, claim it's nothing more then a mythology, and the opening should die.
If you know refutation of the KG, could you please share it with us. If you don't - why is KG unsound?
The point of the KG is to marauder with a couple of peices, to use tactics in the opening. However, when players like Morphy introduced postional play and peice development in the opening, the whole point of the KG's is lost. Indeed players like Andersson scored great wins with the KG's, but to be honest, a game like "The Evergreen game" will never happen in this era, that's in an era were players did not know opening theories or defensive techniques. They simply all did cheapo tactics in the opening, and Andersson knew tactics better then anyone, even Morphy, but Morphy was ahead of his time in every other facet of the game, and thus, beat Andersson.
Paul, you mention the only GM to regularly use the KG's, Spassky. This is mentioned in MCO, and I quote, "Spassky has scored some worderful victories with it", but only one guy being able to use a 500 year old opening successfully doesn't do much to promote it, IMHO.
Stats from 1991 to present, over 2 million games.
King's Gambit after f4:
43% white wins 37% black wins 20% draws
Sicilian after c4:
37% white wins 34%black wins 29%draws
Kings's gambit looks at least as good as Sicilian for white.
Top players who use it (2700) Ivanchuk, Federov, Morozevich, and of course Nigel Short.
I don't know. Haven't used the opening myself, but it looks statistically quite tastey!
Originally posted by mateuloseProbably white could not maintain opening edge with best play from black side, but that does not mean that KG is "unsound". It is perfectly playable. Many GMs played it. Recent examples: GM Fedorov uses it on regular basis, Morozevich played many KG games. And most important for me: I can understand why GMs do not play it - slight chance of getting an edge from opening means a lot on that level; but on amateur level? If you are white and get equal (or even slightly inferior) position out of opening, but feel comfortable with it and know how to play it - what else do you need?🙂
Many of the great chess players have written books critiquing it. I have rarely seen it in tournaments. It's an opening of the 1500's, 500 years ago, that was later proven unsound, white essentially gives up a pawn and nothing else. Read books such as "Sickbed of the king's gambit". Heck, read MCO 14, and they critique this opening from the begining, ...[text shortened]... guy being able to use a 500 year old opening successfully doesn't do much to promote it, IMHO.
Oh, I just checked. there is a record of thirty-eight Morphy games where he played the King's Gambit as white. I think the opening lent itself to Morphy's style: open lines, quick piece development, tactical imagination. It's obvious the KG is not used as often as in 1800's and de Firmian pretty well tears it up in the intro to the KG in MCO 14, but then ends up by saying, " ...it is clear the opening is alive and well."
Originally posted by mateuloseBronstein-Yusupov, 1981
Paul, you mention the only GM to regularly use the KG's, Spassky. This is mentioned in MCO, and I quote, "Spassky has scored some worderful victories with it", but only one guy being able to use a 500 year old opening successfully doesn't do much to promote it, IMHO.
1. e4 e5 2. f4 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nxe4 4. d3 Nc5 5. fxe5 d5 6. d4 Ne6 7. c4 Bb4+
8. Bd2 Bxd2+ 9. Qxd2 c6 10. Nc3 O-O 11. Rc1 Nc7 12. cxd5 cxd5 13. Bd3 Bg4 14. Ng5 f5 15. h3 Bh5 16. O-O Bg6 17. Nb5 Nba6 18. Nd6 h6 19. Nf3 Ne6 20. Kh1 Rb8 21. Ng1 Qg5 22. Qf2 Nb4 23. Bb5 f4 24. Nf3 Qe7 25. Qd2 Na6 26. Bd3 Bh5 27. Bc2 Nac7 28. Qd3 g6 29. Bb3 Kh8 30. Ba4 Rg8 31. Qd2 Rg7 32. Qf2 Rf8 33. Rc3 g5 34. Rfc1 Bg6 35. Bc2 Ne8 36. Bxg6 Rxg6 37. Qc2 Rgg8 38. Nc8 Qf7 39. Qb3 N6g7 40. Nd6 Nxd6 41. exd6 Qe6 42. Qxb7 g4 43. hxg4 Qxg4 44. Ne5 Qg5 45. Qe7 Rf6 46. Rc7 Re8 47. Nf7+ Rxf7 48. Qxg5 1-0
Judit Polgar - Flear, 1989
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d3 d5
5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Nf3 Nb6 7.Bb3 Bd6 8.Qe2+ Qe7
9.Nc3 Bg4 10.Qxe7+ Kxe7 11.Ne4 Bxf3 12.gxf3 Nc6
13.Nxd6 cxd6 14.Bxf4 Nd4 15.Kf2 Nxb3 16.axb3 a6
17.Ra5 Kd7 18.b4 Rhe8 19.c4 Re6 20.b5 axb5
21.Rxb5 Kc6 22.Rc1 Ra2 23.Rb3 Nd7 24.d4 Rf6
25.Bg3 b6 26.Re1 d5 27.cxd5+ Kxd5 28.Re7 Kc4
29.Rc3+ Kb4 30.Rc2 Kb3 31.Rce2 Ra7 32.d5 b5
33.d6 Rf5 34.R2e3+ Kc2 35.Rc3+ Kxb2 36.Rc7 1-0
Fischer-Evans 1963
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Qh4+ 4. Kf1 d6 5. Nc3 Be6 6. Qe2 c6 7. Nf3
Qe7 8. d4 Bxc4 9. Qxc4 g5 10. e5 d5 11. Qd3 Na6 12. Ne2 Nb4 13. Qd1
O-O-O 14. c3 Na6 15. h4 g4 16. Nh2 h5 17. Nxf4 Qxh4 18. Kg1 Nh6 19. Nf1 Qe7 20. Nxh5 Rg8 21. Nfg3 Rg6 22. Nf4 Rg5 23. Be3 Nc7 24. Qd2 Rg8 25. Nfe2 f6 26. exf6 Qxf6 27. Bxh6 Bd6 28. Rf1 Qe6 29. Bf4 Rde8 30. Rh6 Bxf4 31. Qxf4 Qe7 32. Rf6 Ne6 33. Qe5 Ng5 34. Qxe7 Rxe7 35. Rf8+ Rxf8 36. Rxf8+ 1-0