While I was analyzing the King's Gambit, after 2. f4 the comp showed it as -0.6. Even the capture 2...ef4, which I consider a mistake unless followed up with g5 (that's also a powerful line), also showed it as -0.3. Even after 3 Nf3 Nf6 the comp showed -0.4.
As u all know, the King's Gambit is a very powerful and aggressive opening, and that it has been a favourite weapon amongst a lot of masters for winning a lot of games, and I find f4 as the 4th most common opening move after 1 e4 e5 in the Masters Database. Ignore the one about 2. f4 d5. I think THAT line deserves some point minus for Black and is the best defence against the King's Gambit.
Well, good luck for all, thank u.
@SwApNeEl1 said in #1:
> As u all know, the King's Gambit is a very powerful and aggressive opening
Exactly why Stockfish analyzes it with -0.6.
@InkyDarkBird said in #2:
> Exactly why Stockfish analyzes it with -0.6.
what do u actually mean??
Have you ever decided to think about the flaws of f4? It exposes the square that only the king is defending and it is also part of the 2-move checkmate.
f-pawn games can turn very deadly for either side very quickly.
Maybe
Big difference between playing it against the computer vs against a human. Positions the computer can't defend against itself can be totally winning in human vs human matches.
I'm learning not to evaluate chess book instruction with the computer, at least not that much, and certainly not to discredit the book where the computer can refute it.
In most of my analyzed games, stockfish only shows blunders in the first 3rd of the game. After that it is just winning or losing. Not very useful for finding what we could do to make a comeback or prevent 1.
Or maybe that is just about the graph scale. Best to look at evals move by move to find the rest. Even then it just says one side is losing.
>As u all know, the King's Gambit is a very powerful and aggressive opening, and that it has been a favourite weapon amongst a lot of masters for winning a lot of games
Unless it's made a comeback, it's hardly ever used at the top level. Too risky. I could see it being used occasionally to surprise an unsuspecting opponent, but are there any GMs that use this opening regularly?
I just won at least an exchange against an opponent in correspondence chess. Most of my moves were not in the top 4. The position still had complexity, yet my opponent resign in the opening. I analyzed it with stockfish to find my continuation plans would have quickly loss against stockfish. Only 3-4 moves for it to equalize with counter attack.
Most of its top moves are counterintuitive, going down crazy looking lines that leave material in danger but win later. I at least got some confirmation that some of my planned moves and expected replies were good enough.
As for the kings gambit, don't play it in classical chess against someone who prepared. At our level, you can leave book and play patzer vs patzer with an equal, exciting game.
In my game, my moves made threats that worked on someone near my level. They would have quickly failed against stockfish.
Why do players here care what grandmasters play? Make your patzer opponent refute it. Don't stop playinh it till you start getting punished, and for reasons the computer agrees with.
