I play the king gambit but . I am losing .he won the game . Kings gambit is a Dangerous
@Nimeshrandika You need to find yourself some more detailed thoughts on the King's Gambit HOWEVER you need to start reading Chess Books & watching chess videos to get better results at chess . What to read >? Start out with Logical Chess Move by Move by Irving Chernev There are 33 games that have been completed that are presented here in this book that explains each and every move ... move by move with the ideas about the center, development, attacking and defending the king & winning material / sacrificing material also the importance of the endgame & middlegame ideas & ideals . PLease listen to advice at times so look at it free at The Internet Archive or buy the book & read it play over the moves here on lichess should take about 20-30 minutes per game to study / look at & learn from' . the 33 games & book can be done in three weeks easily or 4 weeks or even 2 weeks . The point being you can get a new book every month & Still Play Chess look at recent Grandmaster games at times & watch Chess Videos by say GM Igor Smirnov on You Tube free as well but Play as well & develop Objectivity in attack AND Defense & Endgames Middlegames
Kings gambit da best
Most of the top guys don't play it anymore.
The decline in popularity is partly due to the rise of computer analysis, whichshows that black can achieve a solid position with the right moves. Additionally, the King's Gambit leads to dynamic games that can be decisive, and most of the top guys are positional players. They're not going to take big risks.
The decline in popularity is partly due to the rise of computer analysis, whichshows that black can achieve a solid position with the right moves. Additionally, the King's Gambit leads to dynamic games that can be decisive, and most of the top guys are positional players. They're not going to take big risks.
The real question is, Are you good? It's your strength and chess ability that determines whether an opening is good or bad.
Among the world champions, Spassky was very successful with the King's Gambit. Fischer played it rarely in tournaments but had a 100% score. Even Magnus Carlsen has played the King's Gambit successfully.
Among the world champions, Spassky was very successful with the King's Gambit. Fischer played it rarely in tournaments but had a 100% score. Even Magnus Carlsen has played the King's Gambit successfully.
@Sleprithslayer said in #4:
> Most of the top guys don't play it anymore.
>
> The decline in popularity is partly due to the rise of computer analysis, whichshows that black can achieve a solid position with the right moves. Additionally, the King's Gambit leads to dynamic games that can be decisive, and most of the top guys are positional players. They're not going to take big risks.
I believe that is not the case...
IMO it's because the draw ratio is very low .... much lower than current mainline openings.
When rating points mean $$$$ very few modern GM's play the King's Gambit.... much to like gambling
Yes ... White has 40% plus to win... but!!!! Black's chances are like 38% also (or something like that depending on what database you are looking at.
The King's Gambit has never been refuted....
Modern GM's IMO are tentative and fickle.
> Most of the top guys don't play it anymore.
>
> The decline in popularity is partly due to the rise of computer analysis, whichshows that black can achieve a solid position with the right moves. Additionally, the King's Gambit leads to dynamic games that can be decisive, and most of the top guys are positional players. They're not going to take big risks.
I believe that is not the case...
IMO it's because the draw ratio is very low .... much lower than current mainline openings.
When rating points mean $$$$ very few modern GM's play the King's Gambit.... much to like gambling
Yes ... White has 40% plus to win... but!!!! Black's chances are like 38% also (or something like that depending on what database you are looking at.
The King's Gambit has never been refuted....
Modern GM's IMO are tentative and fickle.
@PaulC123 said in #6:
> I believe that is not the case...
>
> IMO it's because the draw ratio is very low .... much lower than current mainline openings.
> When rating points mean $$$$ very few modern GM's play the King's Gambit.... much to like gambling
> Modern GM's IMO are tentative and fickle.
Read my last sentence again. What does it say? LOL.
You said "I believe that's not the case" then you went on to restate what I already said.
Clearly, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.
> I believe that is not the case...
>
> IMO it's because the draw ratio is very low .... much lower than current mainline openings.
> When rating points mean $$$$ very few modern GM's play the King's Gambit.... much to like gambling
> Modern GM's IMO are tentative and fickle.
Read my last sentence again. What does it say? LOL.
You said "I believe that's not the case" then you went on to restate what I already said.
Clearly, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.
@Sleprithslayer said in #7:
> Read my last sentence again. What does it say? LOL.
> You said "I believe that's not the case" then you went on to restate what I already said.
> Clearly, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.
Omg .. if I had a dollar everytime I told someone that I'd be rich.... can't believe I just did that lol
> Read my last sentence again. What does it say? LOL.
> You said "I believe that's not the case" then you went on to restate what I already said.
> Clearly, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.
Omg .. if I had a dollar everytime I told someone that I'd be rich.... can't believe I just did that lol
I like it, especially the old main line, the Kieseritzky gambit. I don't play it very often nowadays though. I get similar positions from the Vienna gambit (2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4) when I am inclined to play that sort of thing.
One big problem with the KG as white is one has to be prepared to meet each of several different black defenses, all of which are good, and each of which has its own distinct character. Black only has to know one of them well enough to get by. I think what really did it for me though was when GM Matthias Wahl published a fairly deep analysis of the Schallop defense, which I never thought very much of, showing that white is basically holding the draw. Just holding. That was about 4 years ago, if I recall. I don't know if his analysis has been tested in master play or not, but I suspect few people are interested in trying. If something as unappealing as that is good for black, how much better must the meat and bones lines be?
One big problem with the KG as white is one has to be prepared to meet each of several different black defenses, all of which are good, and each of which has its own distinct character. Black only has to know one of them well enough to get by. I think what really did it for me though was when GM Matthias Wahl published a fairly deep analysis of the Schallop defense, which I never thought very much of, showing that white is basically holding the draw. Just holding. That was about 4 years ago, if I recall. I don't know if his analysis has been tested in master play or not, but I suspect few people are interested in trying. If something as unappealing as that is good for black, how much better must the meat and bones lines be?
I have doubts how relevant a discussion about reasons why top GMs play(ed) or do/did not play an opening is for a player rated below 1000 on lichess. Just saying...
Personally, I would suggest not to focus on openings too much at this stage. Learning about opening principles and understanding them would IMHO be more helpful. After all, at this level (and much higher), your opponents are unlikely to follow the theory lines and will often play moves the books don't even bother to mention. Apart from that, learning basic tactical patterns, basic positional features (space, piece activity, isolated/double/weak pawns, ...) and perhaps also some basic endgame techniques, all that will help your progress much more than dwelling on an opening.
For a beginner, I would rather suggest some "cleaner" opening allowing to follow the principles more easily (e.g. Italian) but I don't think your choice of opening matters that much. In most games you won't be able to play "your" opening anyway.
Personally, I would suggest not to focus on openings too much at this stage. Learning about opening principles and understanding them would IMHO be more helpful. After all, at this level (and much higher), your opponents are unlikely to follow the theory lines and will often play moves the books don't even bother to mention. Apart from that, learning basic tactical patterns, basic positional features (space, piece activity, isolated/double/weak pawns, ...) and perhaps also some basic endgame techniques, all that will help your progress much more than dwelling on an opening.
For a beginner, I would rather suggest some "cleaner" opening allowing to follow the principles more easily (e.g. Italian) but I don't think your choice of opening matters that much. In most games you won't be able to play "your" opening anyway.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.