Better as Black.

Originally posted by tomtom232
@nimzo5

Would you say the KG is a good opening? Or is it something higher rated players feast on?

I've been thinking of going over to the Ruy Lopeth but I love my KG too much...

The KG tends to amplify any mistakes- tactical or strategic. So for example I love to play it against guys a couple hundred points below me.

It's a good opening for a developing player as you learn very quickly the value of time and quality vs material. However, I would also play the Spanish or Italian game alongside it.

In that respect it might be easier to play the Italian game and occasionally throw in the Evans Gambit and such than to play the KG outright?!? Either way the KG nearly gets my approval as acceptable- you better be up for some harsh reversals of fortune though. Not an opening for the timid.

If you do play it, study Spassky's games- pure genius.

Originally posted by wormwood
yes, of course learning to understand different types of positions is always very good. getting different ways to see things, and new ideas you can apply elsewhere. and I also think that's one of the reasons why the young rising (top) players are toppling the old guys. not that many years ago it was all 'two kramniks playing for a draw in the handful of sol ...[text shortened]... g these last couple of years, which is of course just great! it's change or die.

a beautiful post!

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Robbie.

This bit...

"As for grandmasters, Larsen made a career of 1.b3,"

Larsen first used 1.b3 in 1968, 12 years after he became a Grandmaster.

It was his main weapon between 1968-72 when he played it 35 times.
(so it is hardly a career from a player who spent 50 plus years playing the game.)

1968-72 stats:

W.27 D 5. L.3

Quite ...[text shortened]... put most of their energy into studying replies
v 1.e4 and 1.d4. It's as simple as that.

meh, there are objective reasons for playing 1.b3 other than its shock value. Personally, i like it!

Originally posted by nimzo5
The KG tends to amplify any mistakes- tactical or strategic. So for example I love to play it against guys a couple hundred points below me.

It's a good opening for a developing player as you learn very quickly the value of time and quality vs material. However, I would also play the Spanish or Italian game alongside it.

In that respect it might be eas ...[text shortened]... hough. Not an opening for the timid.

If you do play it, study Spassky's games- pure genius.

I have studied his games and Kieseritzky's games, as well as Stoltz and Marshall's.

I tend to try new moves with it early on in a game without analysing just to find the outcome because with the KG you never really know for sure what is best within the first few moves.

Originally posted by wormwood
yes, of course learning to understand different types of positions is always very good. getting different ways to see things, and new ideas you can apply elsewhere. and I also think that's one of the reasons why the young rising (top) players are toppling the old guys. not that many years ago it was all 'two kramniks playing for a draw in the handful of sol ...[text shortened]... g these last couple of years, which is of course just great! it's change or die.

You see a bit of both- Gelfand boring us to death in the Petroff and then ripping someones face off the next day in a sharp game. Some of the top guys (kramnik, Grish, radja) have played some tedious QGD draws of late due to the format of top level tournaments. But by and large you are right- Carlsen can play anything and when Shirov or Chucky are in the tournament as well then you will get some interesting chess.
Leko seems to be making a comeback, can't see how that is good for chess. (teehee)


I don't like to empasize openings at all, the system I suggest in fact de-empasizes the opening. With my repertoire, I am saying basically going for zero "opening cleverness"
Play 1.e4 learn the Ruy or the Italian game. So what if your opponent has "prep" if you lose you learn something valuable, if you win- kudos. Over a couple years time, you will be a damn good Ruy player and you will have an excellent foundation for understanding positions in other openings as the Ruy is very rich in ideas.

I would much rather add 1.b3 after having mastered the Ruy than try to learn the Ruy after only having played 1. b3.

Originally posted by nimzo5
The point is that your pet lines will only get you so far.

yeah i am sure they said the same thing to Reti when he played Nf3 against Capa and then kicked his butt! 🙂

Originally posted by tomtom232
I have studied his games and Kieseritzky's games, as well as Stoltz and Marshall's.

I tend to try new moves with it early on in a game without analysing just to find the outcome because with the KG you never really know for sure what is best within the first few moves.

I suggest playing the Bishop's Gambit lines- I have had great success with 1. e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 stuff. Very sharp and less familiar than the more mainstream 3.nf3.

just my .02.

I do enjoy the Kg 🙂 Playing one against Kaoslos as we speak.

Originally posted by nimzo5
I suggest playing the Bishop's Gambit lines- I have had great success with 1. e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 stuff. Very sharp and less familiar than the more mainstream 3.nf3.

just my .02.

I do enjoy the Kg 🙂 Playing one against Kaoslos as we speak.

Yes, I have been playing that with more frequency OTB for those reasons but I just scored this nice win with the classical KGA



Edit: I have this overwhelming feeling to post games that I win like this or else I will explode... lol. This one was against a 1900+ on chesscube.

Post Edit: I will also take your advice and start playing more Spanish games.

yeah, i also have this, I prefer playing black and also tend to win more games. I can't believe that a draw as black is seen as good as a win, because grandmasters do win as black. It seems very unlikely to me.