I always thought the main reason for GMs giving up the KG was the main line Kieseritzky: 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6, when the apparently sub-optimal 6.d4 has traditionally been the modern preference.  It should be dynamically equal if White chooses 6.Bc4 though.

As far as I'm aware the Fischer Defence with 3...d6 hasn't really caught on at master level in the way that 3...g5 or even the Modern (3...d5) has.

I recall I tried the 3...d6 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1 line as Black in a couple of casual games.  I really don't think the idea is as bad as it first appears- the f4 and g4 pawns are weak, the knight can redeploy on e2 to attack f4, and the black kingside is full of holes.  I reckon White has full compensation for the pawn in this line.

FightingDragon wrote on 10/14/08 at 10:00:40:


Because I dislike developing backward and have seen some games on respectable level where White did not do well. If my memory serves me well Leko had a nice win as Black. I am aware of Gallagher's opinion and also some Hebden wins, but both have given up the KG anyway, haven't they? Dissatisfaction with 6.Ng1 might have to do something with it - or perhaps not.
Sorry, I don't have the time at the moment to look closely at this variation and I assume you can find some relevant games yourself. I will be happy to be converted.

Excellent thread. Lots of new ideas.

• 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ne5 (or 3...g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nc6 6.d4) is a bit overrated (i.e. theory says +/- which a way too optimistic) White has other options. 4.Nc3 or 5.Nc3.
• 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.g3 is not a TN. There was the game Littlewood-Kloster, Davos SUI 2004. Before that game I analyzed 5.g3:
  5...d6 6.d4 Bg7 gives White the play he wants. Better seems 6...g4 or even perhaps even better 5...g4 6.Nh4 Nd4!? blocking the d-pawn. I was unable to find a good continuation after this. Perhaps someone else is more lucky.
• 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4 3.Nf3 g5 4.d4 g4 5.Bf4 gf3 6.Qxf3 d6 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.Bc4 Nd4 9.Bf7+ Kf7 10.Qh5+ Kg7 11.0-0 Nf6 (=+ apparently, but) 12.Bh6+ Qg8 13.Qg5+ Kf7 14.Qh5+ Ke6 15.Qh3+ Ke7 16.Qh4 Nf5 -+ Fedorov (Informator 69) However 16.Nd5+ Ke8 17.Qd3 looks like an easy improvement and unclear in my view (don't trust the computer when it says =+).
  Here there is also' Carmelo Coco's 8.Bb5!?
  In the Quaade move-order 7.Bc4 is an important alternative for White. If White enters from the Fischer defence via 3...d6 4.Nc3 he is deprived of this option.

@Fightingdragon (no secrets)


1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 g5 4.d4 g4 5.Bf4: gf3: 6.Qf3: d6 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.Bc4 Nd4: 9.Bf7:+ Kf7: 10.Qh5+ Kg7 11.0-0 Be6 12.Rad1 Nf6 13.Bh6+ Kg8 14.Qg5+ Kf7 15.Qh5+ ... (Salmensuu-Alexandrov, Istambul, 2002)

11....Nf6 =/+(Fedorov) and there is no forced draw)

11.0-0-0 (Salmensuu's prefered this 2 years after the above game)
11......Qf6! 12.Nd5, Qg6 -/+ (Salmensuu-Nysti, Helsinki,2004)

======================================
MNb's remarks on 1.e4,e5 2.f4,exf 3.Nf3,d6 have
to do with move-orders and transpositions:

4.d4,g5 5.Nc3,g4 and black has no direct need for ...h6
4.Nc3,h6 (4...g5!) 5.d4 Transfers to Becker's Defence.
Though I doubt that white has an advantage here
[Mnb] probably thinks of the following variation he recommended in previous posts:

4.Nc3,h6
5.d4,g5
6.g3!?,fxg3 (after 6...g4 7.Nh4,f3 black has spent a tempo on the not so usefull ...h6)
7.hxg3,Bg7
8.Be3         (Mnb; More common is 8.Bc4,Nf6 though neither Morozovich nor Grishuk could attain advantage playing white)

A recent game, showing black has not really much to fear:
8.Be3,Bg4 9.Be2,Nd7 10.Qd3, c6 [unclear], Shulman-Formanek,Conneticut,2007

I agree with Mnb on the second part. The variation
3...g5 4.Nc3,g4 5.Ne5,Qh4+ 6.g3,fxg3 7.Qxg4,Qxg4 8.Nxg4,d5!?
was actually played in Pillsbury-Maroczy, Vienna, 1903 and 
quickly led to a drawish endgame. 
Even though there is not much news under the sun. Practically all suggestions, have been discussed previous in this section of the forum.
Subscribers to paid 1.e4,e5 section can verify this very quickly, as there is a small separate database for download there that contains the forum analysis and more.

Is nobody interested in the king's gambit anymore?

Did I post too many variations or is my suggestion entirely silly? 

After checking Vadim Zvjaginsevs games in the King's gambit I have some new ideas for white:

1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 g5 4.Nc3!?

now 4. ... g4 5.Ne5 is at least OK for white.

the game Zvjaginsev-Smirnov, 2008 went 4. ... Nc6 5.g3!? d6 6.d4 Bg7 7.d5 Ne5 8.gf4: gf4: 9.Bf4: Bg4 10.Bb5+ Kf8 11.Be2 with a balanced position.

what about 4. ... d6 5.g3!? (the new idea)? I couldn't find any games with that move. The idea is to transpose to the lines discussed in the Fischer defence thread (which to my mind give white nice compensation) without allowing the Rosentreter which I think is better for black (like after 5.d4 g4!).
After 5. ... g4 6.Nh4 f3 7.d4 play is very likely to transpose to these lines. One independent try is 7. ... Be7 8.Be3 (8.Nf5!?) Bh4: 9.gh4: Qh4: 10.Bf2 Qh6 when black is one tempo up compared to the Furhoff-Eriksson game from the Fischer defence. Nevertheless I think white has compensation after 11.Nd5 Kd7 12.Qd3 with the idea of 13.Be3 and 0-0-0 or even 12.Qd2!?

Black can also play 5. ... fg3: 6.hg3: Bg4 (Bg7 7.d4 h6 is the Becker defence) 7.d4 h6 (Bg7 8.Bc4 Nc6 9.Rf1 Qe7 10.Be3 h6 11.Qd2 Nf6 12.0-0-0 0-0-0 13.Rde1 and white has compensation, the question is if it's enough) 8.Bc4 Bg7 9.Rf1 and again the game has transposed to the Becker defence.

If this is a way to play the Fischer lines without allowing the Rosentreter, I think the King's gambit becomes interesting again!
I would like to hear your opinion!