TopNotch wrote on 10/28/06 at 19:13:17:


Progress to where though? Most chessplayers are not going (and are not trying) to become professional chess players. Below that level, as long as you know what you're doing, you can get away with absolutely any old rubbish. That's the best thing about not being a professional. You can play whatever you like because, while no one wants to lose, ultimately the result doesn't really matter.

TopNotch wrote on 10/28/06 at 19:13:17:


I refer the honourable member to the reply I gave some moments ago

TopNotch wrote on 10/28/06 at 19:17:13:


I don't care

I don't think the advantage is particularly important in most OTB play. It's much more important to have positions you're happy to play, where you know what you're doing. I've had my best results with openings in which objectively I have no advantage at all (e.g. 1.b3 or 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+ Bd7 4.a4).

Nice stats Johnathan, I guess we have differing philosophies on Openings and Opening play. Quoting statistics is nice n all, but using them to justify an openings objective merits requires a much deeper analysis. If raw statistics were the end all, we would all be playing the Blackmar Diemer Gambit. There is nothing wrong with alternative openings provided one has a sound base to begin with, but if all ones openings border on the dodgy then the future is bleak. 

To progress properly in chess some opening complexes are a must to study and the sooner the better, and then they are others Openings where there is not so vital. This advice is not really targetted at you Johnathan or other hardcore Gambiteers, but rather those still undecided newcomers who need a broader picture of the real chess world before being unwittingly seduced to the dark side.   

So rather than being accused again of not understanding what you are really trying to say, please summarise what you think the true status of the Kings Gambit currently is? - that is good for White good for Black, equal or none of these.

Top

TopNotch wrote on 10/28/06 at 16:37:41:


and the result was 0-1, 30
conclusion: Shirov can beat Fedorov in any opening

but from the games in my databases:
Fedorov still had a 66% score with the King's Gambit (albeit not as good as his 71% with 2.Nf3)
and Gallagher had a 73% score playing it game after game (which is better than his 67% with 2.Nf3)

TopNotch wrote on 10/28/06 at 16:37:41:


I pretty much replied to this already in another thread:

the reason GMs don't play the King's Gambit is...

Quote:


and I went on:

Quote:


i.e. who cares what grandmasters play?

TopNotch wrote on 10/28/06 at 16:37:41:


that's more or less my opinion about playing provocative openings – the point being that if you go too deep you'll find lines you really don't like and then you won't feel right about playing the opening at all. (For White that generally translates into searching for an advantage that isn't there.) So rather than spending countless hours looking for irrelevant novelties on move 25 or wherever, you do much better just to play the opening and improvise over the board.

TopNotch wrote on 10/28/06 at 16:37:41:


That's sound advice. But I like alternative openings; and the King's Gambit serves me pretty well anyway.

Toppy, its all abt making sweeping statements.

miniature black win by adams in KG- Toppy says KG is brittle, fragile etc

Jon reples with miniature black loss in sicilian - Jon says Sicilian unsound

Toppy wants high level KG analogy, Jon gives miniature white KG win & concludes KG wins

After that you just go on rambling abt your already well known in this forum opinions abt the KG being all things bad & how vastly superior the Lopez is, even to the extent of belittling the KG just because of a miniature white loss in the earlier posts!. It really doesnt make any sense. Thats the whole point of the rhetoric/ironic replies of "Sicilian is unsound" & "KG wins"

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Thats true. But its one thing to have an informed opinion & quite another to have sweeping statements and oversimplified generalisations. Spassky himself also said before that the Lopez doesnt give him much.

I tend to wonder if Toppy actually realises what Jonathan is trying to say in his posts!

Quote:


Interesting that you should mention Fedorov  

[Event "Rubinstein Mem"]
[Site "Polanica Zdroj POL"]
[Date "2000.??.??"]
[White "Fedorov,Alex"]
[Black "Shirov,A"]
[Round "5"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2646"]
[BlackElo "2746"]
[ECO "C39"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5
d6 6. Nxg4 Nf6 7. Nf2 Rg8 8. d4 Bh6 9. Nc3
Nc6 10. Nd5 Nxd5 11. exd5 Qe7+ 12. Be2 Nb4 13. c4
Bf5 14. Qa4+ Kf8 15. Qxb4 Re8 16. Qd2 Rxg2 17. Kf1
Rg3 18. Qd1 Be4 19. Rh2 f5 20. Nxe4 fxe4 21. Bg4
e3 22. Bf3 Qg7 23. Rh1 Rg2  0-1

After this miniature Fedorov Never Again touched the Kings Gambit in a serious game to my knowledge. The honeymoon phase was over and the next time he met Shirov in 2001 he resorted to the Bishop's Opening (2.Bc4) not to be confused with the Bishop's Gambit which too is just as unreliable. 

I suspect Fedorov now regrets not devoting more time to sturdier stuff like, dare I say it, The Ruy. 
Spassky recognised the Kings Gambit was unsuitable for everyday use, but Fedorov preferred to be hoisted by his own petard before acquiescing to this harsh reality.   

I think Joe Gallagher now plays the Ruy after a brief flirtation with the Scotch Four Knights, and Fedorov probably now has to make up for years of lost study time before he can employ the Ruy sucessfully against his peers.

Evgeny Sveshnikov in an interview expressed great regret at never seriously studying the Ruy and admits now that at his age it is too late to redress the balance, so despite the fact that there is no theoretical advantage to be had from the Scotch Gambit he is committed to it. My advice is rather than always having to shop around for alternative Openings why not commit to stuff that will serve you well your entire chess life.     

Conclusion: The Kings Gambit maybe useful as an occasional weapon, but to ask more from it will ultimately bring you grief and by then it may well be too late for ones brain to absorb proper alternatives. 

Toppylov

Postscript: Wasn't it you Johnathan that said something to the effect that if you study the Kings Gambt too much one would never play it? I believe the opposite should be true with good Opening choices.   

 

Quote:


It would have been a more effective analogy to quote a high level miniature won by Black as in the Kings Gambit example rather than a Rapid game won by White. Nevertheless a very interesting Rossolimo by Judit.

Topper