Quote:Taljechin,
I didn't mean any disrespect to you or the KG when I said that the QG is richer. I'm surprised that you took offense and more surprised that you disagree. I never said that the KG was unplayable, I only compared it to the QG.
Nope, I didn't take offense I just don't agree with ya!
I've played both openings we're comparing, each exclusively for many years. If you haven't you should try the KG before having opinions about it or you might end up on a lost highway...
There are many strategic old games in the QG too Botvinnik played a lot of them for example, so I don't see how 'modern practice' would make your claim any more valid - today the QG is more popular, due to the big guys playing it. But historically, we can go back to the early 1900s when 1.d4 was a weird opening, probably regarded as we look on 1.b4 today.
Quote: That means, we're comparing the richness of the Slav, Semi-Slav, QGA, QGD, Tarrasch, Catalan, and so on with the richness of the King's Gambit Accepted and Declined.
Another one eyed comparison...
The other side of the coin is that we're comparing the richness of the: Vienna, Adelaide, KGD, KGA, Falkbeer (you forgot the Albin CG btw), Nimzowitsch CG, Modern/Abbazia, the Bishop Gambit, King's Knight Gambit, Queen's Knight Gambit, Allgaier, Muzio, Rosentreter etc with the Queen's Gambit Accepted and Declined.
Quote:Hmmm. You are right, I am pretty limited in my understanding of chess strategy.
Well if you say so...
- I just assumed that you either don't know the KG or defines strategy in a limited way...