Grant and you will uncover!
Strange name, real matters
Have you ever played online chess? Online chess can be a lot of fun. Come play online chess with us!
30 ( +1 | -1 )
Ime thinking about trying the kings gambit on this site because of the exciting, tactical chess it
can produce, but ime aware that it hasnt been used for years by gm's because it is essentialy
flawed.Can it however be used on gameknot against good players or would it just put me at a
71 ( +1 | -1 )
It is not flawed, essentially or otherwise. Just note that there is a ton of theory out there on this opening. I don't advise ignoring this theory, as that could be dangerous to your position, but certainly make sure you understand what is going on.
The general idea is that you will get very quick development and great control of the center. A nice kingside attack (once properly developed!) usually comes with package as well. And the pawn? Eh, you'll get that back without even noticing... ;)
I started off trying 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 and later went with 3. Bc4. I prefer the bishop move now, but the knight move is just as fun and makes just as much sense.
42 ( +1 | -1 )
Oh, something else I wanted to say. Please take no offense when I say that I've found that at the rating level of you/your opponents, there will generally be somewhat significant tactical errors made that can determine the outcome of the game. Playing the King's Gambit only makes it easier for someone to trip up and make that mistake. Be ready to take advantage, and don't be the one to make the mistake :)
20 ( +1 | -1 )
There is still plenty to explore with the Kings Gambit, maybe it is considered inferior at GM level and maybe it is or maybe it is not. However, not too many GM's on here :)) It usually produces great games!
142 ( +1 | -1 )
It is important to realise the difference between the kings's knight gambit and the king's bishop gambit. which is 3.Nf3 or 3.Bc4
3.Nf3 is not as played anymore for several reasons, but suffice it to say that 3...d6 or d5 equalizes which is not as good for white. Also there is a TON of theory out there.
the move d6 is the fischer defence which removes e5 as a square for the knight to jump to after pushing the g-pawn forward. d5 strikes back in the centre, and is the modern way to play against the king's gambit.
3.Bc4 is still played by a few grandmasters mostly due to the fact that d6 and d5 doesn't work against the bishop. d5 simply looses the pawn while d6 which was intended to stop the knight from jumping into e5 now no longer has any effect. Sure it develops a piece, but that's it. the queen can now travel along it's kingside diagonal because the knight is not in its way, which i believe is atleast one of the mainlines for this opening.
I still play the king's gambit with 3.Bc4. Just be wary of letting black hold on to the f pawn, sometimes this makes your position relly cramped. I suggest playing it against the computer several times, then you will get the general idea of how cramped your position can become.
And one last thing, Bobby fischer played 3.Bc4 against a computer of his time. And creamed it. You might want to check that game out too: -> www.chessgames.com
43 ( +1 | -1 )
It is true that the king's knights gambit has been abandoned by strong players because black can equalize if he knows the theory. However if you are playing on not to high a level, something like lower than 2000 in rating, I think most opponents do not know so much theory so you can calmly play the king's knights gambit.
But from a theoretical point of view the King's bishop gambit is better.
77 ( +1 | -1 )
And even so, equality isn't something that should be avoided like the plague! Show me 1 opening where black plays reasonably and doesn't eventually get equality.
There are many potential reasons why it's not played by super GMs right now (simply stylistic, too sharp = too much chance of losing by 1 small inaccuracy, gives black easy equality instead of letting him choose something unbalanced and inferior, too much analysis on too many lines = black is more in control over which variation is played), but none of these relate to those of us rated down here. You get an exciting game with equal chances for both sides. Whoever makes the last mistake loses and the other player wins, simple as that.
90 ( +1 | -1 )
Just to widen your horizons...
... There are more obscure King's Gambit lines to consider:
After 1.e4 e5 f4 exf4 ...
(1) 3.Nc3 the ultra sharp Keres Gambit. Black usually responds with 3...Qh4 and it's all on.
(2) 3.Qf3 No, I'm not making this up: it's the Breyer Gambit. Capablanca once played it.It has to be admitted, though, that the move envisages a posiotional treatment of the Gambit, based on his Q-side majority.
(3) 3.Kf2 Crazy, but just playable: the King's Own Gambit, a.k.a the Tumbleweed. Black wipes out White's K-side infantry, but White gets very active piece play in compensation.
(4) 3.d4?? I believe this leads to a forced win for Black after 3...Qh4ch. However, the related Steinitz Gambit arises from the Vienna: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.d4... The result is similar to the Keres: 4...Qh4ch 5.Ke2 d6 (or Black can try 5...d5) 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.Bxf4 ..
(5) 3.Be2 The Lesser bishop's Gambit, played by Tartakover ...
There's plenty to work with the King's Gambit even from hust the third move, so go to it!
154 ( +1 | -1 )
Like ganstaman and kaf1 say, 3.Nf3 is quite playable. Especially on lower levels.
I should probably have clarified that i was speaking about why theory has moved away from the knights gambit.
However, i would like to say that my personal experience with it is not as good. Like i stated above, i often end up with a crowded kingside. This is true for both 3...d6 and d5, but i really don't like playing against d6(fischer defence). But this is more of a personal preference really.
As far as you asking me for one opening where, given that black plays correctly, he doesn't get equality; there are several to choose from. Given that both black and white play correctly, at the end of the opening theory things will still be status quo. which means that white still has the initiative. And all other things being equal, the initiative means an extra tempo. Which is an advantage. not equality.
Now i'm not saying that i disagree with you on the whole "don't get freeked out about equality" statement. I agree. The lower you go scill-wise the less this has to say. But i wouldn't recommend Nf3 simply because there is too much theory and the defences against it really doesn't leave black in any pressure. In fact i think black is very early on already playing for the advantage.
I recommend 3.Bc4 and stick with it. There is less theory, you don't meet a kingside pawn rush kicking you king's knight, and there are bunches of fun traps for you to try out. The trap part is especially true for lower levels.
17 ( +1 | -1 )
It is absolutely essential to know how to handle 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5, which often leads to the Falkbeer Countergambit after 3.ed e4: which at least around here, is a fairly popular reaction.
1 ( +1 | -1 )
I play 2. ... d5, too :)
4 ( +1 | -1 )
I also play 2. d5 but some times 2. Nf3.
94 ( +1 | -1 )
I'm not ready to write off the KG yet~!
But if someone wants to try .... of course Fischer has claimed refutation by accepting with exd4 followed by ...d6 and then ....g5. Whereas Evans has preferred the Berlin Defense method of acceptace with remarks , at least , to the effect that WT cannot meet it sufficiently. 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef 3.Nf3 Nf6 then usually e5 and Nh5 will be played.
Personally I usually play the Falkbeer CG in any serious game .... assuming I'd play ...e5 in any serious game :) (as I S%*& with it :)
Personally, having tried to play it myself ... I feel the KG-like Vienna gambit has "had it". And I think that Evans would probably agree, tho it seems Weaver Adams did not, nor Bronstein ... yet Bronstein has avoided playing it when the chips where down ... albeit later to bemoan his timidity (aka prudence!? :) a bit . WT just seems to need a darn tempo like forever, when Ive tried it in otb and got crushed.
It might be an interesting venture to look at the differences involved ... which is why I mention it, besides being rather KG-like
247 ( +1 | -1 )
Bill Hartston ....
... gave as the reason why the King's Gambit is not much seen these days the Falkbeer Gambit-type line: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d5... Not that he is certain that 3...d5 is even the best response (though he says it may be). After 4.e5? g5 White retains his pawn deficit, but doesn't have a pawn centre in even partial compensation. So: 4.exd4 Nf6 after which White has a number of tries:
 5.Bb5ch c6 6.dxc6 Nxc6 7.d4 Bd6 8.Qe2ch (why not 8.d5 do you reckon?) 8...Be6 9.Ng5 0-0! "and Black seizes the initiative"
 5.c4 c6 6.d4 Bb4ch! (Instead of 6...cxd5 7.c5) 7.Nc3 cxd4 8.Bxf4 0-0 "with a good game for Black". Mind you, I don't think White's game is all that bad here either.
 5.Nc3 Nxd5 6.Nxd5 (6.Bc4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 Bd6 "also gives White nothing". On move 7, taking with the d-pawn not so much loses castling rights - not such a chore when the Queens have gone - but leaves Black with a solid pawn majority on the K-wing, against White's inefectual majority on the Q-wing.) 6...Qxd5 (Having the Q out this early is no hardship for Black, as White can not attack it effectively) 7.d4 Be2 8.c4 Qe5ch 9.Kf2 Bf5 "and Black is in no danger".
The quotes are from Hartston.
Note that these observations don't point to a positive disadvantage for White, particularly, either, so in my view these lines are quite playable for White if he's not expecting too much - and why should he if Chess is a reasonably balanced game? Indeed Hartston sums things up with these comments: "In these variations, White always has the prospect of a better endgame if he can capture the gambit pawn on f4 [which suggests a plan for White then! IAD] The speed was curiously fast with which the King's Gambit turned from a fearsome attacking weapon into a mere hope for a better endgame. Now variations such as the last given here [5.Nc3 etc] are considered likely to lead just to equality..."
Very well, but I seem to recall back in the '60s something being said of hypermoderns like Breyer exploring the potential of the King's Gambit to lead to a superior endgame. The Breyer Gambit (1.e4.e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Qf3 ...) is aimed precisely at that. I've even seen a Capablanca game that featured this opening, the great Capa, playing a King's Gambit! ... So I wouldn't dismiss the King's Gambit because with best play you might get a better ending. You could say that about any first move you play. For mine, such a long term prospect adds a string to the Gambiteer's bow.