RoleyPoley wrote on 03/27/14 at 21:12:37:


Mark Hebden likes the Cunningham Defence, look up his games. It used to be one of my favorites as well, but I never got to use it in a otb tournament game, the King's Gambit being so popular n all. 

Nowadays if I met the King's Gambit, I would probably go d5, 3.exd5 exf4 or if I knew it was coming would probably look up the current refutation in John Shaw's new Bible.

Nottop 

Joking aside, the original poster should just pick a slightly offbeat way of playing and prepare it as well as he can.  People play things like the King's Gambit (and other such lines, i.e. the Morra Gambit, Grand Prix Attack, and whatnot) to reach unclear positions where they are much more at home than their opponent.  The good news is that Black is fine in any number of ways, so you can pick something that is less popular to try to get White back onto your territory.

Was it De la Villa who wrote something like "Against main lines play the main lines, against secondary lines play secondary lines, and against unsound lines play the refutation"?  A lot of sense to that.  

I suspect that 2..Bc5, the Modern Defence, and 2...exf4 3.Nf3 g5 are the most popular responses at all levels (judging from my database and popular opening book recommendations).  I'm in no way an expert on these lines, but perhaps 3...Ne7!? would be a good defense to specialize in, for instance 2.f4 ef 3.Nf3 Ne7 4.d4 d5 5.Nc3 de 6.Nxe4 Nd5.  

IMJohnCox wrote on 03/26/14 at 17:41:51:

I've just checked the database for two Germans, Frank Zeller and Hartmut Metz, who have played the KG dozens of times. They are quite successful with it. Objectively, 3...d5 isn't much worse than 3...g5, but I guess after 3...d5 the gambit player has a practical advantage, as he knows this structure better than his opponent. The same isn't true for 3...g5, where you can hardly predict the resulting pawn structure. White is in unknown territory almost as soon as his opponent. 

White chooses between the Kieseritzky Gambit, the Hanstein/Muzio complex or some forms of Quaade or Rosentreter, often intending an early g3. Against each of these, Black has dozens of options. In effect, Black can prepare a repertoire with 3...g5 designed to lead into foreign territory - just as unfamiliar to White as to Black. 

However, this is a completely different thing than saying that Black has an objective advantage after 3...g5. Which isn't proven even for the Bishop's Gambit.

It seems to me that the whole point of 2 f4 is that if Black likes solid positional chess he's going to have difficulties. This is the only reason it scores as well as it does, in my view. I don't think the Modern is at all solid and positional - it's quite strong but as Markovich said it's dynamic.

My opinion, as I have said before, is that solid and positional chess is not an option and that 3 ...g5 is simply best and must be played; it's possible that White is not actually lost but that's about the best you can say for him. It's true that you have to learn a bit and that every now and then something terrible will happen, but every time I've had this OTB White has been lost out of the opening (not that he's always stayed that way).

smrex13 wrote on 07/04/06 at 00:40:09:


that's perhaps part of your problem
don't try everything. pick a defence you like the look of and stick with it.
all defences to the king's gambit are basically sound, so you can play whatever you like.

smrex13 wrote on 07/04/06 at 00:40:09:


Davies' 2...Bc5 lines are sound, as long as you know what you're doing

solid, positional chess... hmmm...
play 3...Be7 and get your pieces out.

You forgot about:

"White can equalize with careful play."
(A TopNotch quote if I remember correctly)

Quote:


I have always played the Modern Variation, and with good success.   Also I use 2...exf4  3. Nf3 d5, since I think that 2...d5  3. exd5 exf4  4. Bb5+ is more promising for White than 2...exf4  3. Bc4 is.  Black has other, perfectly good defenses to 3. Bc4.

I think that White is worse in the Modern Variation than he is in the initial position, which is an excellent reason for not playing the King's Gambit.  It is probably not =+, however.  A very dynamic position does arise from 3...d5  4. exd5 Nf6  5. Bb5+ c6  6. dxc6 Nxc6  7. d4 Bd6, with opposing 4-versus-2 pawn majorities, that Black must be well prepared to handle.  Black also has to know what he's doing after 5. c4, for example, 5...c6  5. d4 and now 5...Bb4+  6. Nc3 cxd5 is correct, not 5...cxd5 6. c5 +=.  Even then, Black has to play vigorously in the 5. c4 line to get pressure against White's d-pawn.  Bangiev has a book in German where he recommends 5. c4 c6  6. Nc3, but I doubt that it leads to much.  Finally, I don't agree with those who argue that White gets anything from 5. Bc4 followed by Bxd5: so long, and thanks for the two bishops!   

Something to keep reminding yourself when you play the Modern is to keep looking for kingside chances.  White's kingside is weak, of course, in the entire king's gambit complex, and it remains so in the Modern.   

I do have to say that somebody who's lost 50 games to the King's Gambit and won 2 probably has something more seriously wrong with his chess than a lack of theoretical knowledge.

Well I certainly don't think White is worse in the Modern variation, but I think it is difficult to prove an advantage, but I haven't looked at it in a while.  I'd be interested to hear which variations other KG players do dislike facing the most.  This is only slightly off topic since it could help an 1...e5 player choose his defence to the KG.