Originally posted by paultopiaThere is no pressure on d4 after 6. Nc3 Bg4. If black chooses to attack there I am sure white can defend. For example one move, Ne2 puts 3 peices on d4 (also frees c3). And if white was spending his time manuvering queenside then d5 (further cramping black queenside) may be even better.
The problem with Nc3 is that it risks overwhelming pressure on white's d4 pawn after Bg4. This is a very common theme in the fischer defense, as well as the KGD. That's why I prefer to reinforce the d4 pawn with c3 and put the QN on d7.
Oh ya, I think c3 is a good move as well. I think this move fits nicely with the theme I am proposing, strengthen center and look queenside. I just perfer Nc3.
6. c3 Bg7 7. Qb3
Originally posted by egsmithg3 is completely essential. White has nothing after any move that transposes to the Hanstein or Philidor Gambit lines (1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 Bg7) - though that is not to say you won't win if Black fails to play accurately.
I don't really think g3 is essential. I think the kingside is equal and whomever attacks there first, without more re-enforcement, looses it. I also think re-enforcement moves by white can be matched by black so it's better to seek play else where in attempt to secure an advantage there instead.
I agree 5...g4 leads to an interesting position but I do ...[text shortened]... ile counterattacking the center. I think playing 5...Bg7 directly fits nicely within this plan.
The only potentially good alternative to g3 I've seen is a suggestion of Thomas Johansson in 'The King's Gambit for the Creative Aggressor', which is 5.b3!?, playing along the lines of the Becker Defense. I'm not convinced by his analysis though (I meet the KG with the Becker as Black).
And after 5.h4 Bg7 you are losing the pawn on g5!
Originally posted by OsseSo I found a review of the book
g3 is completely essential. White has nothing after any move that transposes to the Hanstein or Philidor Gambit lines (1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 Bg7) - though that is not to say you won't win if Black fails to play accurately.
The only potentially good alternative to g3 I've seen is a suggestion of Thomas Johansson in 'The King's Gambit for the Crea ...[text shortened]... (I meet the KG with the Becker as Black).
And after 5.h4 Bg7 you are losing the pawn on g5!
'The King's Gambit for the Creative Aggressor'. http://www.chessville.com/reviews/Kings_Gambit_for_the_Creative_Aggressor.htm
It appears I was mislabeling my line. I apologize for any confusion that may have caused. Actually the review seems pretty usefull (especially since I defend the KG a lot) but I have only skimmed it so far.
But in response to what do when
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 ...
is played?
I say play 4...h4 followed by g5 to change the nature of the game.
The h4 leading to Bg7 line I was considering is,
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 h6 5. d4 g5 6. h4 Bg7
I don't think this drops the g5 pawn.
And in this line, which would probably be typical,
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 h6 5. d4 g5 6. g3
I don't think g3 is essential and, IMHO, 6. Nc3 is a superior
move to g3.
Don't you think 3...g5 is a little aggressive for black? To me
it looks like it just creates another weak spot in a position that
is about to come under heavy attack.
my problem with the whole h4 thing is I think it's unprincipled. the most basic rule of middlegame play is "counter a wing attack in the center," and in the KG, that's where white's long-term advantage is. So I try and avoid playing h4, even though I might have more success with it, until I plumb all the possibilities in the center. Because white, on principle, shouldn't be futzing around on the kingside trying to mess with black's pawn chain there when he has a development advantage and more center space. a development advantage and more center space require an attack on the center.
Originally posted by paultopiaI wholeheartedly agree.
my problem with the whole h4 thing is I think it's unprincipled. the most basic rule of middlegame play is "counter a wing attack in the center," and in the KG, that's where white's long-term advantage is. So I try and avoid playing h4, even though I might have more success with it, until I plumb all the possibilities in the center. Because white, ...[text shortened]... re center space. a development advantage and more center space require an attack on the center.
Don't you think 3...g5 is a little aggressive for black? To me
it looks like it just creates another weak spot in a position that
is about to come under heavy attack.
Not at all. It's a defensive move. It creates a "granite block" on White's open KB file, to paraphrase Nimzowitch, and locks in White's dark squared Bishop. If you don't make this move, White has access to the file and his Bishop and gets his material back as well. It also allows Black's dark square Bishop to fianchetto and attack White's center in a classic hypermodern style.
Originally posted by OsseI must confess, the Hanstein is troublesome. (I avoid it like the PLAGUE in the 3. ... g5 lines. In blitz, against 3. ... g5 players, I'll even bust out the quaade on it, but I'm nuts that way) I'm convinced there's a weakness though. Black's just pushed too many pawns.
g3 is completely essential. White has nothing after any move that transposes to the Hanstein or Philidor Gambit lines (1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 Bg7) - though that is not to say you won't win if Black fails to play accurately.
The only potentially good alternative to g3 I've seen is a suggestion of Thomas Johansson in 'The King's Gambit for the Crea ...[text shortened]... (I meet the KG with the Becker as Black).
And after 5.h4 Bg7 you are losing the pawn on g5!
But in response to what do when
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 ...
is played? But in response to what do when
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 ...
is played?
I say play 4...h4 followed by g5 to change the nature of the game.
This is the point of the Fischer Defence, as I mentioned in the second post in this thread. 4...h6 (I assume you mean) will probably transpose into variations that are good for Black.
The h4 leading to Bg7 line I was considering is,
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 h6 5. d4 g5 6. h4 Bg7
I don't think this drops the g5 pawn.
This line does not. However it is the Philidor Gambit, which is fine for Black.
And in this line, which would probably be typical,
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 h6 5. d4 g5 6. g3
I don't think g3 is essential and, IMHO, 6. Nc3 is a superior
move to g3.
Theory disagrees. White has to break open the kside to make something of his initiative, otherwise Black has a fine position. Thus White always tries to play some combination of g3 and/or h4. I'll post some references later.
However against players who are not well up on KG theory, development and an attack will bring you a lot of wins and a lot of fun games. There's no point not playing it if your results are good - OTOH I've only played these lines as Black against opponents under around 1800 (everyone else plays the main lines) and I'm rarely out of theory by the time I have a winning position. It's dangerous.
Don't you think 3...g5 is a little aggressive for black? To me
it looks like it just creates another weak spot in a position that
is about to come under heavy attack.
McDonald and Emms believe this is better for Black, and the best line against the KG. I think Short and Shirov both agree, from game coments I've seen. However Black will come under attack and has to know a great deal of theory to survive - very difficult to play successfully even at the very top level.
Originally posted by paultopiaBut think about the Slav Gambit and QGA lines, where if Black takes on c4 and then tries to defend it with b5 White breaks the pawn structure up with a4.
my problem with the whole h4 thing is I think it's unprincipled. the most basic rule of middlegame play is "counter a wing attack in the center," and in the KG, that's where white's long-term advantage is. So I try and avoid playin ...[text shortened]... t advantage and more center space require an attack on the center.
You're not playing for a massive attack as much as playing to show that Black's attempts to keep the pawn have caused him to overextend. Therefore weakening the Black Kside pawns is a necessity. The massive attack is an occasional nice outcome of this, though obviously the attacks can go both ways 🙂
Originally posted by OsseHmm, I don't know the QGA or the slav in the slightest. (My only defenses to d4 are the albin, the dutch and the benoni). But it's still an interesting point... except I'm really not convinced the small advantage of "weakening overextended pawns" compensates for the big disadvantage of "making vulnerable king even more vulnerable."
But think about the Slav Gambit and QGA lines, where if Black takes on c4 and then tries to defend it with b5 White breaks the pawn structure up with a4.
You're not playing for a massive attack as much as playing to show that Black's attempts to keep the pawn have caused him to overextend. Therefore weakening the Black Kside pawns is a necessity. The massi ...[text shortened]... e attack is an occasional nice outcome of this, though obviously the attacks can go both ways 🙂
AThousandYoung is dodging more tactical bullets in the above linked-game! It's insane!