woofwoof wrote on 10/27/06 at 04:14:17:


And this is exactly the point, no one is disputing the Kings Gambit usefulness as a surprise or occasional weapon, but it is far too brittle an opening to be any more than that. For a further illustration of this fragility, see Nigel's feature game of the article Day vs Adams where Adams won in 13moves!! 

Tops

Quote:


And still people can win with the KG, even at the top when they occasionally dare to push the f-pawn...


Quote:


And yet Kasparov, who was probably the most theoretically updated player ever, lost his title largely due to the Spanish not being good enough to beat the Berlin Wall. And in Kramnik-Leko the Marshall gambit replaced the Wall and it also did quite well for black. (& so did Kramnik's Petroff Defence!) 
So obviously, both patient defence and impatient counter attack works for black against the Spanish, even at the summit of chess...

If you want to win as white at the top I think you must mix it up a little. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 is predictable and black will be fully prepared to meet it. So in future I think top GMs will either spend an occasional game on trying something new in the alternative openings or play the Catalan, English etc as closed games gives the chance to fight it out in a middle game with practically no prepared variations.

So, what openings lead to a 'significant white advantage' after perfect play from both sides?? - I have never heard of any... 


Anyway, thanks for the gamelink - a fine game by Abby indeed! And a nice warning for those who are getting tempted to start playing 1...e5 - to notch up some easy points as black in the KG... 

Point taken top!  
In retort I may quote (perhaps not verbatim) Santasiere: "Chess is not mathematics and cannot be reduced to A+B=C".

I like to use logical arguments when it comes to discussing variations, and certainly when it comes to books that give faulty analysis, when there is conflicting evidence.

I totally disagree with your sweeping statement about mathematicians. Is it based on that weary idea of matmematicians being dull because someone never understood maths and therefore anyone that does understand must be dull and boring and play dull and boring chess? Often I hear the same kind of argument about scientists and their social ineptitude.

Perhaps one could think that mathematicians like to play chess in a different ways. I, for one, prefer the good old fashioned romantic style with either colour. Just as I prefer brazilian football over german, 49ers throwing game over Dallas' pass and running game. Undeniably the german way of playing football is more logical than the erratic and unpredictable brazilian way. If you throw the ball in american football you also risk being intercepted and look stupid, which is really what it is about isn't it? No guts no glory!

As a scientist I can tell you that there is no such thing as a free lunch, unless you ask God to amend the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  

IMHO the King's gambit is a logical opening. Is the exchange Slav a logical opening? Is it more logical than the King's Gambit. Why play 1.e4 if you want to win without incurring the risk of losing?
Countless chess players have searched for the free lunch. They prefer the comfy predictable maneouvering games where nothing unexpected happens and they win a technical rook endgame because the opponent gets bored and does something stupid.
Without psychoanalyzing anyone I think this trait roots in the archetypal fear of the unknown metamorphosed into a need to be in control.

It boils down to perception I guess.

Some may feel as you do that defending the Ruy is easier or simpler than defending against the Kings Gambit, I simply do not share that view. Defending against a true Lopez player is quite unpleasant as one has to suffer for quite a long time with little prospect of more than a draw, one can argue that there is the Marshall, perhaps the only sound gambit against the Ruy but here white can choose whether to draw or play for more.

In the Kings Gambit White loses control of the position immediately, with his main wish being to reach a complicated position where either side can win. I am sorry, but I don't share such a philosophy with the White pieces, but prefer positions where only one side can win, that being me of course.

Strange that all u mathmeticians and Scientist who are usually all about exact proofs and formulae in life prefer chaos and anarchy on the chessboard.  

Tops 

   

Dragonslayer wrote on 08/08/06 at 14:50:59:

I've enjoyed reading this thread, but Dragonslayer - who is this 'MN' you've mentioned a thousand times?
I just hope you take more care with your mathematics!   

TopNotch wrote on 08/12/06 at 22:21:33:

Nah he didn't stop because he wrote the book. I believe he stopped playing it because 3 Nf3 currently gives Black a draw, and it was more advantagous in his position to learn 2 Nf3 than 2 f4 exf4 3 Bc4 (variety and diversity and all that).

Though if you're right that 2 f4 is a busted opening, it must say alot about Gallagher's abilities to give away all of his preperation and still score well with said busted opening for 10 years

Here's a suggestion for a consensus so that no one will feel they have to justify themselves with page-long posts : The King's Gambit and 6. Bg5 against Najdorf for White and Dragon for Black are poor openings. The reason : they strive for tactics...