Three Kings Gambits

Originally posted by KnightStalker47
[pgn]1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. O-O gxf3 6. Qxf3 Bh6 7. d4 Nc6 8. c3 d6 9. Bxf4 Qe7 10. Nd2 Bd7 11. Bxh6 Nxh6 12. Qh5 Qf8 13. Rf6 O-O-O 14. Qxh6{Black returns the material, but it is ok because the king is safe} Qxh6 15. Rxh6 f5 16. exf5 Bxf5 17. Be6+ Bxe6 18. Rxe6 Kd7 19. Re3 Rhf8 20. Rae1 Rf7 21. Rf1 Rg7 22. Ref3 Re8 23. Rf7+ Re7 24 ...[text shortened]... Rxe7 Nxe7 39. Nxh7 c4 40. Ng5 c3 41. Nf3+ Ke3 42. Ne1 d5 43. Kg1 Ke2 44. Nc2 Nc6 {0-1 GG}[/pgn]

I would have to disagree. I know quite a few KG players who are more than willing to go to an ending. Furthermore they often win those games. As much as I hate to admit it, and as much as I hate the damn KG - it is far from refuted. The KG is still a respectable opening through all phases of the game.

(Respectable, but not playable!) 😉

Q

Originally posted by PhySiQ
I would have to disagree. I know quite a few KG players who are more than willing to go to an ending. Furthermore they often win those games. As much as I hate to admit it, and as much as I hate the damn KG - it is far from refuted. The KG is still a respectable opening through all phases of the game.

(Respectable, but not playable!) 😉

Q

why dont you like it Q, its positionally sound, in fact it begins with a positional sacrifice
on move 2.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
anyone who plays the kings gambit must be a crap end game player? why is that?
your annotations dont reveal anything about the game except a propensity for
megalomania. Neeeext!

I was just making a generalization based on experience.

Perhaps I should have phrased it better. "People who play the kings gambit tend to be weaker in the end game"

Is that better?

Originally posted by KnightStalker47
I was just making a generalization based on experience.

Perhaps I should have phrased it better. "People who play the kings gambit tend to be weaker in the end game"

Is that better?

it has meaning to no one but you, after all, its based on no ones experience but yours.
Q's experience is quite different and in many of the games that i have looked at, white
indeed enters the endgame with a superior or at least equal position and plays it
admirably, indeed, the perception that the Kings Gambit is anti positional is rather
prejudicial, why dont you give Northern Lad a game, he plays it regularly with some
success I am sure he would be only too glad to demonstrate his end game technique.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it has meaning to no one but you, after all, its based on no ones experience but yours.
Q's experience is quite different and in many of the games that i have looked at, white
indeed enters the endgame with a superior or at least equal position and plays it
admirably, indeed, the perception that the Kings Gambit is anti positional is rather
...[text shortened]... with some
success I am sure he would be only too glad to demonstrate his end game technique.

If I played against NL, there would be no endgame.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why dont you like it Q, its positionally sound, in fact it begins with a positional sacrifice
on move 2.

It is not my personal style. I respect its usage very much. I have such distaste for it that I refuse to play e5 ever. I furthermore don't like 1. e4 and thus 2. f4 is even more outside of my taste.

I recognize the KG as a very good tool. Worthy for all experts to know and study. I personally steer as far away from it as is possible. It is just among one of the openings I have no want or need to play with/against. I felt this way for quite some time about the dutch as well - now I tend to enjoy the dutch if played in a favorable fashion. Perhaps someday my mind will be changed on the KG as well.

If the KG is of your taste, I say by all means entertain it and study hard.

Q

Originally posted by PhySiQ
It is not my personal style. I respect its usage very much. I have such distaste for it that I refuse to play e5 ever. I furthermore don't like 1. e4 and thus 2. f4 is even more outside of my taste.

I recognize the KG as a very good tool. Worthy for all experts to know and study. I personally steer as far away from it as is possible. It is just amon ...[text shortened]... KG as well.

If the KG is of your taste, I say by all means entertain it and study hard.

Q

i dont think its essentially a matter of taste Q, one has to challenge the centre in some
way, the alternative is d4 in games like the Scotch or the Lopez where white gets in c3
and d4, it appears to me that 2.f4 is simply the most direct way of doing that and it
limits blacks replys, he can try to keep the pawn, launch a counter gambit or try to
keep the position balanced. In my data base the KG has a measly drawing ratio of
only 16% of games, compared to the 2.Nf3 and 2.Nc3 variations this is particularly
significant, he who dares wins! or loses as the case may be!

Originally posted by KnightStalker47
If I played against NL, there would be no endgame.

i think if i played him there might be no middle game 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i dont think its essentially a matter of taste Q, one has to challenge the centre in some
way, the alternative is d4 in games like the Scotch or the Lopez where white gets in c3
and d4, it appears to me that 2.f4 is simply the most direct way of doing that and it
limits blacks replys, he can try to keep the pawn, launch a counter gambit or try ...[text shortened]... 3 variations this is particularly
significant, he who dares wins! or loses as the case may be!

There are times draws are valuable as well. There are drawing chances in every opening. I think you would find that players of the KG are more willing to take dodgy lines for unclear ends (live by the sword die by the sword) than most players. I've known plenty of players who play the KG as white, the Latvian as black and as they would say "For the d4 cowards amongst us I have the Albin!".

I always hated playing with these 'ol boys.... 1. c4 (counter that!)... As far as attacking the center there are many other perfectly acceptable ways to do this Robbie. Both Bb2 and Bg2 occupy the center. Pawn moves e3 and d3 also occupy the center. There are all together too many ways to control the center through both force and occupancy to enumerate them all, or name any single strategy as the panacea of them. Central space is great, but not always best. Sometimes flexibility and passivity take control of the center when pawns overstretch and lose stability.

One must understand how to play these positions or he'll just get dumped anyway. So in the end it comes down to comfort (or study for experts). Newer players probably haven' studied many openings to a commanding degree. I think its good for a intermediate player to find game types that he really enjoys, and study from there.

If a player is comfortable he'll play it better, and if he is comfortable he is more likely to study his and others games. Comfort will make it easier. I highly recommend that if you are comfortable in this, and you enjoy this type of play - to go for it.

Q

Originally posted by PhySiQ
There are times draws are valuable as well. There are drawing chances in every opening. I think you would find that players of the KG are more willing to take dodgy lines for unclear ends (live by the sword die by the sword) than most players. I've known plenty of players who play the KG as white, the Latvian as black and as they would say "For the d4 cowar at if you are comfortable in this, and you enjoy this type of play - to go for it.

Q

this brings us to a rather in my opinion misunderstood scenario, that 1.e4 is brave
and that 1.d4 is for woosies, nothing could be further from the truth, for unless you
understand how to play with a d pawn in the centre, you will never play the Caro
Kaan, the Scandinavian or the French defence well as white!


position after 1.e4 c6, 2.d4 d5, 3.Nc3 dxe4, 4.Nxe4

how do we play the position?


from the pawn structure it is clear that we need to post a knight on e5, this is our
natural outpost, our other knight controls the weak c4 and e4 squares and may go
to f3 to support the other knight or precipitate a kingside attack, in harmony with the
d3 bishop, our dark squared bishop and a rook support our natural outpost on e5
and our king is safely castled. Our queen works harmony with our light squared
bishop and can go to either c2 or b3. Our pawns, well, we may support the centre
with c3, or in some cases we push the c pawn to c4, only after proper preparation
trying for a d5 break which may yield a semi passed c pawn, we should try to
prevent black from playing c5 or e5 and freeing his game.

we imagine something like this


All this is discernible from the pawn structure, why am I telling you this, well, to my
mind, I understand all of these things, yet i still get beat up by hackers who play for
quick attacks with their queens. I still get beat up by cavemen attacks down the h
file with h4-h5 breaking open my fianchettoed position, if there was any justice in
chess, i wouldn't! where is the justice when i compose my plans according to the
positional requirements and some kid comes along who does a thousand tactical
problems a day, doesn't have the slightest understanding of what the position
entails, plays the opening likes its a game of mousetrap, thinks the endgame is a
foreign concept and still wins with cheapos! where is the justice Q?

Originally posted by KnightStalker47
I was just making a generalization based on experience.

Perhaps I should have phrased it better. "People who play the kings gambit tend to be weaker in the end game"

Is that better?

Wow, I play the KG because I get a good endgame! I suppose the KG attracts rabid attacker types, but I like knowing I can play something that has attacking possibilities, but still preserves the possibility of a very good endgame.

I guess I'm OK with a driver or a putter, as the situation demands.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
Wow, I play the KG because I get a good endgame! I suppose the KG attracts rabid attacker types, but I like knowing I can play something that has attacking possibilities, but still preserves the possibility of a very good endgame.

I guess I'm OK with a driver or a putter, as the situation demands.

I have also heard or read rather that you can get a better endgame with KG, but i could not prove it.