The Fischer Defense: An Unsound Response to an Unsound Opening?

“ (the King's Gambit) so aptly named for throwing the white king's safety to the wind ” - IM Marc Esserman (Mayhem in the Morra, Page 12)

The King's Gambit is one of the oldest documented chess openings, appearing in books as early as the 14th Century. While frequently chastised, it went on to become one the most popular openings till the start of the 19th Century, with proponents like Capablanca, Paul Morphy and David Bronstein, among many others. Starting in the 1920s, the rise of hypermodern openings and a preference for positional play, led to its gradual decline. Nevertheless, it was still frequently frequent occurrence at tournaments, even at the highest level.

In 1961, ten years before becoming World Champion, GM Fischer wrote his famous article, "A Bust to the King's Gambit", offering his Fischer Defense (3...d6) as a refutation.

Two of the more prominent, recent critics of the King’s Gambit are GM Fischer and GM Williams, both of whom advocate 3. Bc5 (The Bishop’s Gambit) as the best variation for White.

The King’s Gambit is however, less popular at the highest level today. While attacking players like Vassily Ivanchuk, Alexey Shirov, Daniel King and Adhiban Baskaran (again, among many others) play it somewhat regularly, they are also known to play every manner of aggressive opening; with no particular allegiance towards the King’s Gambit. What I find surprising, and indeed what prompted me to write this post, is that the Fischer Defense is still touted as the “refutation” to the King’s Gambit, and still played by Black at the highest levels. The Fischer name really goes a long way, huh? So much so, that one of my friends (admittedly, a much better chess player than I am), when preparing to face the King’s Gambit, immediately identified the Fischer Defense as the best response and only studied the lines that arose therefrom. Now, there is merit in the idea that if you’re studying a new opening as Black in a short period of time, choosing one variation (ideally one that often leads to positions/systems you are comfortable in) and studying all its lines is one of the most effective approaches. But, given that my friend had Stockfish 14 handy, I find it interesting that he chose a move that did not offer White an advantage. I acknowledge that engines tend to falter in the opening and that advantages in the 0-1, are rarely decisive for either side, particularly in the opening. Here, I would simply suggest that he also had the entire corpus of GM Games which have been played in this position, which are considerable in number. My friend unfortunately (fortunately?) did not get to play this opening, since a different second move was played (he has used it with great success in online games, however, I have a feeling that was more due to his opponents’ ineptitude; than to his credit). Nevertheless, I digress.
In this post, I shall argue that Fischer’s defense is a suspicious response, and in any case, not the best response to the King's Gambit.

Note: I'm not going to delve into whether of not the King's Gambit is an objectively dubious opening. I think the fact that it has been the most popular opening for over 400 years and is still seen at the highest levels today, speaks for itself.

Fischer and the King’s Gambit

Now, funnily enough, a some people don’t know two important facts about Fischer’s relationship with the King’s Gambit.

1. Prior to writing his 1961 Article, Fischer lost to Mayers’ King’s Gambit in 1953 and Spassky’s King’s Gambit in 1960.
2. Fischer has used the King’s Gambit with great success, winning all 3 tournament games he has used it in

Honestly, the article, while succinct and detailed, simply feels salty. It ends with the famous quip, “Of course White can always play differently, in which case he merely loses differently” which is admittedly humorous. To his credit, nobody dared play the King’s Gambit against him ever again.

Of Fischer’s 3 games playing the King’s Gambit as White, the most notable is his 1963 meeting with Larry Evans. It was the 1963-64 US State Championship at the Hudson Hotel, with a First Prize of 2000$. Larry Evans was a former US Champion, who Fischer had never beaten. Many considered 2.f4 a “cheap” move by Fischer, but he most certainly surprised his opponent. It is rare that you’re able to catch a former US Champion off guard on move 2, well played Bobby, well played indeed. Fischer won in 36 moves, thanks in large part to inaccuracies and mistakes by Evans. Despite playing a line he had clearly prepared, Fischer played an inaccuracy on move 11, and Black was actually better. According to Stockfish 14, Evans made 4 mistakes and 1 blunder in his first 21 moves (+4.3, with equal material).

Inspite of winning, Fischer gave the King’s Gambit no credit, even quipping “Do we really think he spent his time studying such arid variations for White?” While this statement may seem ungrateful, it may also be a tactic, to surprise other unsuspecting opponents in the future. Larry would go on to say that the game had set chess back a hundred years.

It is worth noting that, true to form, in all 3 games, Fischer played 3. Bc4, the only move he analyzed in his Article. It is also a move you cannot play the Fischer Defense against. While this is a great move in its own right, it may not be White’s best move. However, that is a discussion for another day.

The Fischer Defense 2...exf4, 3. Nf3, d6

At the outset, 2...exf4 is Black’s best move, according to Stockfish and leading experts on the King’s Gambit. There is a a reason it is considered the mainline. Also, needless to say, declining the King’s Gambit is 10 years of bad luck (and is tantamount to openly admitting that you’re a wimp), so Black would do well to accept it.

2...exf4, 3. Nf3, d6

Starting position of the Fischer Defense. My views on Fischer and his chess aside, 3...d6 is a good move. Black gains some control in the centre and forces White to play aggressively in order to gain the initiative; immediately questioning the efficacy of the pawn sacrifice. White has 2 main moves here, 4. bc4 and 4. d4. While 4. d4 is easily the most popular move, simply seizing space in the centre, having been played more than twice as often as 4. bc4, I think 4. bc4 is much easier to play for White.

Here's a sample continuation for White (its in the study too): 1. e4, e5 2. f4, exf4, 3. Nf3, d6 4. Bc4, h6 5. h4!

The usual response after 4..h6 is 5. d4 but playing 5. h4 simply disallows g5. Black can no longer defend the f4 pawn comfortably, and 5...Ng6 is now the best move.

6. nc3, bg4
7. d4

Stockfish says the position is equal, but White has pressure on f4, development is on point and White's king is reasonably safe. From a human perspective, White has more than enough compensation for the f4 pawn.

Don't take my word for it, here's GM Daniel King on what he thinks of the Fischer Defense ( 23:45 onwards)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHGX2k27dYQ&t=1280s

Superior Responses for Black

At the risk of digging my own grave, by giving away the best move against my favorite gambit, I shall now proceed to do just that. What gives me the confidence to do this (apart from the fact that most of this information is freely available online for those who know where to look), is that the move is not the refutation to the King’s Gambit (because there isn’t one). It is simply what semantics suggest – Black’s best response.

2...exf4, 3. Nf3, g5

Yes, its the mainline, sue me.

Here's the position for reference:

Stockfish evaluates the resulting position as -(2.9), but Black has a very weak king. The problem is that White has sacrificed White's only developed piece (King's Knight), and can't attack with just an active queen. White is going to have to prioritise King safety and regain initiative.

When faced with the mainline, I prefer going into the Muzio Gambit (which any opponent who plays the mainline usually allows). After 3. Nf3, g5 4. Bc4?!, g4 5. O-O, gxf3 6. Qxf3 the Position is great for White. A safe king, two developed pieces and the initiative, the piece and pawn sacrifice are certainly justified. Funnily enough, Stockfish somewhat sympathises. Even though White is down a pawn and a knight, the position is evaluated as -(1.1). I plan to analyse this line in a separate post, its really fun to play, White spends the whole game attacking the Black King while Black scrambles to develop, there is seldom any counterplay in the middle game.

2...e5!

Fight fire with fire.

The Falkbeer Counter-gambit, Black’s best response(?). Black chooses to immediately give back the pawn and undermine White’s centre. This forces White to fight for space and tempo, having already taken away White’s ability to play bc4. For example, it also stops e5, which could stunt Black’s natural development. It is also every King’s Gambit player’s least favorite variation. If you can play the second best engine move on move 2,and also pull White into a variation he’s uncomfortable in, why would you play the best move (3..exf4) for an indecisive advantage, and play White’s game? I think this reason alone i.e steering clear of the mainline with no significant disadvantage, is enough reason to prefer the Falkbeer Gambit. However, I think the Falkbeer Gambit takes things further by allowing Black to create effective attacking chances, and in many cases, even attack first. Accordingly, I think most players with a preponderance for attack would be more comfortable in this variation. It must be noted that this variation is virtually absent at the highest levels, because it is inferior to 2...exf4. But because the theory is quite different, and so are the resultant structures. As a King's Gambit player I can tell you its one of the variations I dread playing. Same goes for the Cunningham Defense, even though that too, is objectively better for White. If its any consolation, you take away White’s ability to play the Muzio Gambit and Kieseritzky Gambit, among many other ultra-aggressive setups. You also take away White's ability play bc4, forcing White to prioritise development before attacking.

White’s next move is forced, 3. exf5.

Now, we shall consider Black’s two best moves – 3. ..exf4 and 3. ..c6( there are several sidelines, notably 3...e4, but they are all objectively inferior). Its almost like you’re giving Black one last chance to turn back. White simply asks Black - are you really comfortable in the Falkbeer Countergambit?

3..exf4 (transposes to the Modern Defense)

Again, this is Black’s best move but it transposes to the Modern Defense (emphasis added). It is the superior move, but you’re back to playing White’s game. And if you don’t play it, this is the second inferior move you’re playing in a row. But playing 3..exf4 is simply not in the “spirit” of the Falkbeer Gambit. If Black wanted this position, he might as well have accepted the gambit. Now this might pique the psychological element in OTB play, but at lower levels, is probably an indication of a hesitant or confused opponent.

Even in the King’s Gambit accepted variations, Black’s best move is 3. ...g5! and not 3..exf4. However, this variation forces White to play 4.exd5, the only move ever played in this position. Black’s options are now 3..d6 v. 3..g5. This transposes to the Modern Defense, I'm not going to analyse the lines here, needless to say, the game is back within White's comfort zone.

One of the most popular practitioners of the Falkbeer Countergambit - https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=41227&kpage=4 Alexander Onischuk (during the 90s, inferior engines). Inferior defences but he got some great wins. Instructive in terms of punishing mistakes.

3..c6 (Nimzowitsch Defense)

This move is also objectively better for White (as opposed to accepting material), but Black is threatening to win the initiative in the next few moves. Taking the pawn seems logical right? Playing the King's Gambit and being 2 pawns up in 4 moves surely can't be a bad thing! Wrong. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer?node=891260&move=4&moves=e4.e5.f4.d5.exd5.c6&nodes=21720.21721.101115.104287.889435.891260

As you can see, White's only move to maintain any sort of lead in development is 3. nc3. When ANY other move is played in this position, White has lost more than 50% of the games. One of the few times I'm able to see the beauty in theory (usually feels like an attempt at rote learning). The King's Gambit sacrifices a pawn for the initiative and early attacking chances, by taking on c6, we simply give away our hopes of attaining this advantage.

Conclusion

While I might not agree with all of Fischer’s opinions (Exhibit A: https://imgur.com/gallery/zil0ddM), when it comes to Chess, I agree with almost all of them. I’m frankly quite annoyed that Fischer lost to the King’s Gambit (my favorite gambit), ranted about it, and was then forced to take a polarizing stance on the issue. It just sucks that one of my (read: most people’s) favorite players hates one of my favorite gambits. But how I rationalize it is, he’d probably hate the Latvian and Stafford Gambits too (okay, granted those are objectively unsound, but try convincing me they’re not amongst the most fun!). And, his courage in taking such a strong stance against many centuries of chess theory is also commendable.

You can’t expect everyone to be the same, and with these legends, it is perhaps their dynamic and colorful personalities that was the best thing about them. He was ofcourse World Champion for 3 years, and the skill gap he possessed over his peers is impressive even by today’s standards. But some part of me thinks (read: believes) that Fischer eventually came to terms with it in his later days. He did not consider it a strong opening, but no longer considered it unsound.

Sources

While writing this post, my primary resource was Stjepan Tomic’s series on the King’s Gambit. Stjepan is 31-year-old chess player from Croatia. He started playing chess as an adult and aims to be a Grandmaster one day. His YouTube channel is a phenomenal research resource. Reasons why his channel stands out:

1. He is closer to his viewer’s rating than most other popular chess Youtubers, so his content is often more relatable
2. He is very serious about what he does. Most YouTubers have short videos with aggressive gameplay, the chess recipe for mass appeal. However, Stjepan’s videos are targeted towards a specific audience. The videos are long (at least 20min on average), have minimal structure, and are incredibly detailed.
3. He records his lectures in one take, with no editing. This method often lends inadvertent insight into his daily life – whether its declining challenges on Lichess, or the local bell tolling in his city, his reaction is sure to make you laugh

Stjepan’s Lecture Series on the King’s Gambit: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLssNbVBYrGcCauRoeKm0mUiNP9MzMzAVn

Stjepan’s Lichess Profile: https://lichess.org/@/hpy

Stjepan’s FIDE Profile: https://ratings.fide.com/profile/14567083

Links for Further Study

My Lichess Study on the King’s Gambit https://lichess.org/study/b46SjinZ

I’ve also got individual Lichess Studies for the following variations:

1. Accepted, Muzio Gambit (My favourite, post coming soon) https://lichess.org/study/YfIqOo7h
2. Accepted, Kieseritzky Gambit https://lichess.org/study/U91wzDcX
3. Accepted, Cunningham Defense (hella annoying for White) https://lichess.org/study/zTRMaL2v
4. Accepted, Modern Defense https://lichess.org/study/P5qlNW8m
5. Declined, Falkbeer Countergambit https://lichess.org/study/9KTpgPEb
6. Declined, Classical Defense https://lichess.org/study/guDnt0vg

A few games featuring Alexey Shirov in the King’s Gambit
https://lichess.org/study/DLajv8FL (from both sides)

Here is my Lichess study on Fischer’s Article https://lichess.org/study/UIQySNsb (I’ve just played out the lines, all comments are by Fischer)

Fischer’s Article http://brooklyn64.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/a-bust-to-the-kings-gambit.pdf

A lecture by GM Daniel King on the King’s Gambit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHGX2k27dYQ&t=1002s

A lecture by GM Marian Petrov on the King’s Gambit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSt-Uu_sCzs&t=706s

A lecture by GM Damian Lemos on the King’s Gambit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0LIL3d-ZIE&t=507s

IM Mio discussing the Muzio Gambit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Yzr03R72b0

A lecture by IM Valeri Lilov’s lecture on the King’s Gambit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyoQB9AvvRE

GM Hikaru playing Blitz games in the King’s Gambit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NujU9CIAvM&t=735s

GM John Shaw’s tome on the King’s Gambit is available on Libgen.