Quote:


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:


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:


Well if you say so...

- I just assumed that you either don't know the KG or defines strategy in a limited way...

As for lost:

I like playing both sides of the Kings Gambit but i dont think black has anything close to an easy game. As with any gambit it is probley better to give back the pawn at an inopputune time for the first player.

[quote author=Smyslov_Fan] The King's Gambit really is very limited strategically compared to the Queen's Gambit [/quote]

Have you ever played the KG as white?

Or do you just have a limited view of what strategy is?

Sure, the QG has the exchange variation with its minority attack, use of the c-file or the long term plan of achieving e3-e4 with a big centre.

But the KG has definitely its own dynamic strategy, and since the f-file is pointing at the king it's usually also tactical and attacking (and not technical as in the QG c-file), but who said a kingside attack isn't strategic?

The KG has several ideas where material is given to enhance a big centre and pressure, e.g: the Rosentreter / Muzio, or KGD with ...Nd4, Qg3 Nxc2+, Kd1 Nxa1, Qxg7; giving Rh1 for a central grip in some lines with ...Qh4+ Kf1 Ng3+ hxg3 Qxh1, or various thematic pawn breaks followed by pieces, e.g: e4-e5 dxe5, Ne4 exploiting black's weakened d6&f6 squares.

But there's also purely strategic ideas too, e.g. the Kieseritzky endgame, where white may still be a pawn down but his dark square domination still gives winning chances (Stoltz-Sämisch in 1923 for example) or the typical middlegames/endgames where white has the edge of 1 centre pawn vs 0, which combined with a slight initiative can be very good even with just a couple of minor pieces left.

The KG is risky in the sense that white can't play with a 'draw in hand' i.e. if/when black equalises it's not a dead draw as so often in the QGA or Petroff at GM level.

But the few GMs who play it well, very seldom lose. Ivanchuk has 2 of 2. Spassky never lost a serious game with the KG, I don't think Michael Adams has either, Short has lost 1 KG vs Shirov in 1997 but has plenty of wins with it to compensate...

Sadly, they rarely play it nowadays, which can have a number of explanations, perhaps even GMs grow old and start worrying about missing tactical shots? Though, personally, I'd be far more worried in a typical Najdorf middlegame than in a KG...

Quote:


Well, if you prefer to let your calculator do the thinking for y'a,  I suppose there ain't no use trying to talk y'a into the KG... 

But in these fritzy days, I'd figure a good way of getting winning chances is to find lines where the computer will overestimate your opponent's chances for him...

There are many general reasons for preferring to sacrifice the c-pawn over the f-pawn, including the old saw about not opening up your own king's position.  However, those arguments never held much sway with me because Black does have to worry about his own king too.

I'm much more convinced that 2.c4 is a better move than the comparable Pawn to Bishop 4 move because it offers far richer play, it is a more useful move in the fight for the center, and is strategically more desirable than 1.e4 e5 2.f4. 

The King's Gambit really is very limited strategically compared to the Queen's Gambit, and the QG offers White many opportunities to win material early on without risking much.  Even the most ardent KG fan will agree that White risks quite a bit more in the KG than in the QG., right?

In essence, the question isn't really meant to denigrate the KG, but to highlight the amazing strength, depth, and versatility of the QG.  I really believe this isn't just a matter of taste, but a matter of counting the number and variety of opening systems that arise from each opening.

It's precisely because 1. e4 e5 2. f4 is not as good as 1. d4 d5 2. c4, that I prefer 1. d4. Like any KG player I find attacking the enemy king fun. But I prefer consolidating a stable space advantage first. My problem with 1. e4 is that the White centre advantage disapears a wee bit too quickly in openings like the Petroff.

"As for Lost  Highway's opinions - well does anyone take them seriously any longer?!"
I try, but on the subject of gambits it is a bit hard, since he defended Qa5, Nf6-e4xc3 in the QG Exchange and even could not admit that this pawn really is too dangerous to grab.

"which I think is a valid reason for accepting a gambit"
As a lifelong gambiteer I can assure, that these are our favourite opponents. They accept everything, because they do not see a clear cut refutation. Then they are overoptimistic in their defence until it is too late.
Willempie, there is still hope for you. The other reasons you pointed out to accept the KG are much, much better.