Quote:


1. e4 e5  2. f4 exf4  3. Nf3 Be7.  Don't bother trying to brush it off with a one-liner either.  I've been getting good results with this against higher-rated opponents for two decades.  I don't go in for the ...Bh4+ garbage, but rather usually follow with ...Nf6.  In particular in the 4. Nc3, oft cited as some sort of refutation, I prefer Ivkov's 8...Nd7 at the end of the following:

4. Nc3  Nf6
5. d4   d5
6. Bd3  dxe4
7. Nxe4 Nxe4
8. Bxe4

instead of the slow 8...Bd6.  Praxis shows Black as two for two with this line, in the chesslab.com database anyway.

Graham,

I would STRONGLY recommend against the Glek System. I would imagine up to 2300 or even higher the King's Gambit is ideal:

1) Not so much theory (and what it is is almost worthless)

2) White has a clear plan: develop as fast as possible and occupy the center. Use that f-file!

3) People may want to 'play it safe' ---> ending up in an inferior position

In fact Kolev and Berzinsh both used 3...d5, a very nice line for white to face 

So Why on earth did I start this topic then?

1. I am getting old, and therefore more positionally inclined

2. Just when a draw will suffice (like against Kolev) your opponent plays 1...e5 (in the Sicilian you have 2.c3, for example)

3. These days I seldom loose. with a KG, anything could happen!

So I am going to recommend Gallagher book (1992) winning wth the KG, much better than Mc Donalds (although MC Donald's is a later one). If you have NCO, the KG was still done by Gallagher, and anyway yuo'll find theory doesn't move that fast in the KG

If you want to try the Scotch, then I would recommend Well's book - excellent, though here theory surely moves faster!

Regards,



Fernando

You see Gallagher's, Fedorov and Moro's problems only started when they reached/ become close to the 2600 mark!

Well, thanks for all the comments!

I also beat GM Izeta after sacrificing two pieces in Roquetas 1989 with the KG, is not that, it is a matter of not believing in the opening anymore... that game I posted was specially painful.

It all started in 1993, I was leading in Collado Villalba with 6/7 (of course first time of my life). I played against Kolev, and because I worked 9 to 3 (spanish summer hours) didnot know he played 1.e4 e5... and lost after a nerve wracking King Gambit...

So I loose against GMs (normal) but when I also loose against lower rated opponents... I start to worry.

OK, this is general opening prep talk, of which I am really thankful, I wanted to start a discussion of critical lines of the KG.... guess that is not coming...

Thanks again for all the replies...


BTW, Emms, in his intro to Easy guide to the Ruy Lopez also talks about switching form the KG to the Spanish AND morozevich comment in NIC (I used to blunder a pawn with 2.f4?)...

It is more a question of 'Do you play better chess than your opponent?' Yes -> play normal openings No -> bring a complete mess to the position and play the roulette....

I played the Vienna against Cafferty at Hastings, just drawing... Again, even theoretical lines that are supposed to be good (like Spassky-Tempone), somewhat lack bite... but thanks for the suggestion.

There is also Kavalek-Short, where Black played Bc5 and h5-h4, with an exchange sacrifice that is nasty to meet in practice (in fact Short won)

Also I tried it against FM Ricardo Montecatine, and again not much out of the opening. I believe if one is to give up the exciting KG is for a real opening like the Spanish or even 1.d4, like Gallagher did (or myself at ICC)

Fedorov (another KG fanatic having trouble at the 2700 level) tried the Bishop Opening (suggested by Lane first and then Emms in attacking with 1.e4) One only needs to look at the positions they are suggesting. The Catalan is a much more agressive opening!

And Short's games in Madrid (he scored a 2/3 with it) show that the KG is difficult to meet in practice, but that the victories where more due to tactical melees than any other reason, and as for the Shirov game...

Well, no much activity here I guess...

I thought I would hit upon outraged King's Gambiteers...

Hmmm... As Steve Giddins has pointed out, even Gallagher and Fedorov have experienced great troubles...


Some moves... 

As Emms has correctly mentioned in his book Open games as black, White's major problems are on the Kieseritzky and after 3...h6, but even more depressing, the traditional 'good lines' for white (like the Schalopp) are under a cloud (or even the endgame arising from the Falkbeer...)



Semprun,F - Sanchez,E [C34]
Benasque op (8), 12.07.2002
[Semprun,Fernando]

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e5 [ 4.Nc3 d5 5.e5 Ne4 6.d4 Bb4 7.Bd2 Bxc3 8.bxc3 g5 9.Bd3 g4 10.Bxf4 gxf3 11.Qxf3 Nxc3 12.0-0 Be6 13.Bd2 Ne4 14.Bxe4 dxe4 15.Qxe4 Qd5] 4...Nh5 5.d4 [ 5.Be2 de la Villa's choice, recently 5...d6 6.0-0 dxe5 7.Nxe5 Qd4+ 8.Kh1 Nf6 ( 8...Qxe5 9.d4 Qf5 10.Bxh5 Bd6 11.Re1+ Kd8 12.Bf3 Nc6 13.c4 Re8 14.Rxe8+ Kxe8 15.Nc3 g5 16.Be4 Qg4) 9.Nf3 Qb6 10.d4 Bd6 11.c4] 5...d6 6.Qe2 [ 6.Bc4 Hiarcs8  6...d5 ( 6...Nc6 7.0-0 Bg4 8.exd6 Qxd6 9.c3 0-0-0 10.Bxf7 Ne5µ) 7.Be2 Bg4 8.0-0 Nc6 9.c3] 6...d5 7.c4 [color=Red][/color] c6 8.cxd5 [ 8.Nc3 Not clarifying the centre so soon, and giving black the c6 square for his knight 8...Bb4 9.Bd2 Bg4 10.cxd5 Bxc3 11.bxc3 ( 11.Bxc3 Qxd5 12.Qf2 Qe4+ 13.Be2 Nd7 14.0-0 0-0 15.Rae1 Qg6) 11...Qxd5 12.Qf2 c5 13.Bb5+ Nc6 14.0-0] 8...cxd5 9.Nc3 Nc6 10.Qb5 [ 10.Qf2 Be7 11.Bd3 g5 12.0-0 Be6 13.Ne2 Qb6µ] 10...Bb4 11.Be2 a6 12.Qa4 g5 13.0-0 Be6 14.Bd2 [ 14.g3 g4 15.Nh4 fxg3] 14...Rg8 15.Kh1 [ 15.Ne1 Ng7 16.Nc2 Ba5 17.Rad1 Nf5 18.Bc1] 15...g4 16.Qc2 gxf3 17.Bxf3 Ng3+? 18.hxg3 fxg3 19.Qxh7 Kd7 20.Bg4?? [ 20.Bxd5 Rh8 21.Bxe6+ Kxe6 22.d5+ Qxd5 23.Rf6+ Kd7 24.Nxd5 Rxh7+ 25.Kg1 Rah8] 20...Rh8 21.Rxf7+ Be7 22.Bxe6+ Kxe6 23.Rf6+ Bxf6 After this game, it is high time to quit King's gambit , I suppose 0-1