barnaby wrote on 06/08/14 at 01:56:49:
You miss the larger points so I will make them again:
Okay, let's
go through them point by point.
Quote:Play in the Modern is significantly different than all the tries with ....g5.
Well, sure. So are a lot of other defences.
Quote:In the g5 lines white always gets a direct attack
Not at all. A lot of the Kieseritsky, for instance, is positional in nature; e.g. based long-term defects in Black's pawn structure.
Quote:White never gets an attack in the Modern and is instead always defending themselves.
Gallagher actually won quite a lot of games by direct attack. Yes, Black's defences have been worked out since then, but they're still attacks.
Quote:This work on the psychological level because White plays the King Gambit to attack, not defend or play some position endgame where they try to squeeze an opponent.
In my experience White plays the King's Gambit because of its random qualities, which lead to the increased possibility of creative play. King's Gambiteers are quite willing to grind out an endgame if the position requires it.
Quote:Hell if that's what they wanted they'd play the QGD, which is better for that type of game for White.
The QGD may well be better – most "proper" openings are better than the King's Gambit. That's not the point of the King's Gambit.
Quote:The modern does not allow any of the thematic ideas that bleed across all the other variations. It is easy to play as Black and not easy to play as White.
It creates its own problems and possibilities. So do many defences to the King's Gambit. But I've never personally had any trouble playing against the Modern as White.
Quote:I get that you Kings Gambit people love your opening. and I bet you gets lots of exciting games with it.
Some exciting games, some positional games, some ridiculous games, some from-the-opening-into-the-endgame games, all sorts of games.
Quote:The recent Shaw book has not one line that White can equalize comfortably ... not one!
Well sure. But I think
all defences to the King's Gambit are good. So then what?
Quote:I welcome the easy game as Black, which Black gets to decide upon, not White.
Black gets to decide the battleground in
most variations of the King's Gambit, and can prepare that battleground quite easily. That's the major difficulty of playing the King's Gambit with White. But as to whether any particular defence is easy for Black in practice depends on how well someone knows – and
likes – the resulting positions.
That's why I said "this old chestnut"... the Modern as the antidote to the King's Gambit. Not at all, it's just
one possibility out of many for Black, all of which are fine if you know what you're doing. It's like someone else said to me about 1 b3. "Black should play 1...e5 2 Bb2 d6. It's equal." Of course it's equal. Black was equal after 1 b3. So then it all depends how Black wants to set up. Do you
want to set up with ...d6 and ...e5 - ?! Maybe you do. I'd rather play something else.
So if the Modern works for you, great. But as a universal panacea... No. Chess is more interesting than that. Personally, I don't want to play those Modern positions as Black (I'd rather play them as White) and I don't want equality and an "easy game" either, supposing such a thing could be proven in practical play. I prefer other variations such as: 2...exf4 3 Nf3 h5!? or 3 Bc4 f5!?, or (in earlier years) 2...Qf6!?. Okay, that last one is pretty dodgy, but in the other two I can certainly control the play, far more so than in the Modern variations, because I know what I'm doing and I like those complicated positions. That's really all that counts in the King's Gambit.