Kings Gambit Solved? (article)

Article: http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8047

"Rajlich: Busting the King's Gambit, this time for sure
02.04.2012 – Fifty years ago Bobby Fischer published a famous article, "A Bust to the King's Gambit", in which he claimed to have refuted this formerly popular opening. Now chess programmer IM Vasik Rajlich has actually done it, with technical means. 3000 processor cores, running for over four months, exhaustively analysed all lines that follow after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 and came to some extraordinary conclusions."
...
"Will chess professionals, and chess amateurs for that matter, have access to the King’s Gambit “tablebases”, if I may call it that?

There is a problem of size that makes it simply impractical to keep it locally on your computer. However we will make it available online, in the near future, so that everyone can find out which moves win, lose or draw – in practical trial-and-error sessions."

Anyone else worried that over time this will take the fun out of chess?

A good April Fool's joke. I am sure if this were true, Spassky would find a way to win a one off game in a "proven" losing line.

Oh you're right! Argh I've been had! 😛

Well now I'm glad. 🙂

The date of the posting said april 2nd, but I am reading their article on it now http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8051

hehe. Thanks...

Anyway, I hope chess never gets solved! 😛

Suppose it were true.Endgame tablebases do exist.
Do you play the endgame any better since their existence?
Have they killed your enjoyment?

Originally posted by ChessJester
Article: http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8047

"Rajlich: Busting the King's Gambit, this time for sure
02.04.2012 – Fifty years ago Bobby Fischer published a famous article, "A Bust to the King's Gambit", in which he claimed to have refuted this formerly popular opening. Now chess programmer IM Vasik Rajlich has actually done it, wit ...[text shortened]... ons."

Anyone else worried that over time this will take the fun out of chess?

Surely you jest.

It was an obvious gag.
Why mention the date they moved? What has that to do with anything?

ChessBorg now admit it. I spotted an anagram for:

"....popular opening" which they say in the openiong paragraph.

An anagram of 'popular opening' = April One Popgun

A popgun being a joke gun - April One (1st) Joke.

But apparently that was just a coincidence.

I might have guessed, that far was too imaginative for that bunch of dweebs.

I wonder how many saw it and believed it?

We will soon know when 3.Be2 starts appearing all over the place.
I think 3.Be2 is called the Lesser Bishop's Opening.
It will have to be renamed the April 1st Bishop. (or the Robin Hood - see below)

On here I have found 25 examples of 3.Be2. 17 White Wins 0 Draws! 8 Balck wins.
18 of these games have come from two players.

Robin Hood has played it 14 times and Pjoern 4 times.

I like the trap Pjoern played here.

Pjoern - vargaj RHP 2006



Robin Hood played the same Kf2 idea but his was a Queen losing blunder.

Robin Hood - davall 2010

With proper play by black, the KG leads to a small advantage for black.... if you're an engine. The best game I've ever played in my life was as black against the KG. Next time I'm not on my phone I'll post it. But if Judit Polgar can take a whooping from an elder Spassky in the line, I don't think it's for us mortals to claim theres a bust. After all a chess god once did, and was subsequently proven wrong.

There are not many openings that Tartakower never played.
His wee experiments were no good against Capablanca who never really
relied on opening knowledge.

The games I looked at with 3.Be2 seemed to throw up some juicy looking positions.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
There are not many openings that Tartakower never played.
His wee experiments were no good against Capablanca who never really
relied on opening knowledge.

The games I looked at with 3.Be2 seemed to throw up some juicy looking positions.

"Capablanca who never really relied on opening knowledge" is myth, according to Alekhine in "New York 1927". The myth created by Capa himself in his "My Chess Career", I would add.

But Tartakower was able to give a good fight when he did not made "wee experiments".

I'm not too sure about Alekhine's reasoning there although I am familiar with
this statement. I was much more interested in his statement that he [Alekhine]
had to change his style to that of Capablanca's to beat him in the world title matech.
He realised that taking risks and seeking complications would not work.

It's pretty obvious that Capa thougt all he had to do was turn up and win.
Nobody gave Alekhine much of chance.

Capa's preparation was zilch. The first game was an Exchange French?


Alekhine went for the Winawer (3...Bb4) Capa totally unprepared played 4.exd5.
Capa then played very dull, Alekhine took the initaitive and won without much trouble.
Infact if I recall did he not reject a promising sac attack and later on the win of
a Rook and went for a Capa like win instead. (Capa was reduced to looking
for cheapo's in that game.)

Capa knew then he would have a fight on his hands, then came all those Queen's Gambits.
That was Capa staying with what he knew to keep Alekhine at bay.
His opening rep was quite narrow.

I cannot think of any major TN's from Capablanca which suggested he never
threw himself into the study of openings.
He relied on his natural talent and speed of thought, the latter, as you would expect
deserted him as he got older.

He is also one of the few great players not to have a main opening rep named after him.
His contributions to opening theory were pretty sparse. He relied on others to
blaze the trail, he just tidied them up OTB.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
I'm not too sure about Alekhine's reasoning there although I am familiar with
this statement. I was much more interested in his statement that he [Alekhine]
had to change his style to that of Capablanca's to beat him in the world title matech.
He realised that taking risks and seeking complications would not work.

It's pretty obvious that Capa tho ...[text shortened]... were pretty sparse. He relied on others to
blaze the trail, he just tidied them up OTB.

Hm, Alekhine said "I find it unbelievable how I can win 6 games against Capablanca but I find even more unbelievable how he can win 6 games against me."

But, it's common legend that Capablanca did not prepare for chess tournaments.
It is true indeed, that he underestimate Alekhine in 1927, all right, and compared to fanatic Alekhine, Capablanca looked like on summer holiday.

But Capablanca did prepare himself.
There are several variations named after him in Caro Kann, Queen's Gambit, Grunfeld's Defense, Queen's Indian Game and one must note that he OTB endured Marshall's Gambit.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
I'm not too sure about Alekhine's reasoning there although I am familiar with
this statement. I was much more interested in his statement that he [Alekhine]
had to change his style to that of Capablanca's to beat him in the world title matech.
He realised that taking risks and seeking complications would not work.

It's pretty obvious that Capa tho were pretty sparse. He relied on others to
blaze the trail, he just tidied them up OTB.

The 1st game of their match shows only that Capa was not prepared to face French (like Kasparov was not prepared to face Berlin defense vs Kramnik in 2000 or Kramnik who did not expect Leko to play 1.d4 in 2004). Which does not mean that he made no preparations at all.

So your argument is invalid.

Also Capa has introduced several variations named after him, as vandervelde has pointed out.


In the 1st round of New York 1927 tournament Capa played Spielmann who played new variation prepared for this tournament. Spielmann drew easily.



In round 13 they played the same variation again and Capa prepared novelty on 7th move.

Capa certainly believed in opening study. He just thought endgame and middlegame study were mre important. His advice to all players at his famous Havana lecture was that one should study openings only when one was "bored" with endgame and middlegame study.

Originally posted by greenpawn34

He is also one of the few great players not to have a main opening rep named after him.
His contributions to opening theory were pretty sparse. He relied on others to
blaze the trail, he just tidied them up OTB.

I don't know if it's still common parlance but Qc2 in the Nimzo used to be called the Capablanca variation. I would consider that a pretty important main opening.