|
I think that a strong player could easily crack up over the task of writing a "Play the King's Gambit" repertoire book. On the one hand, there is an enormous mass of dubious 19th-century theory, ramified and "improved" upon by hordes of latter-day adherents, much of which leads to =+. Many of these positions are best beheld in a mirror, lest looking at them directly turn one into a raving lunatic: the Rice Gambit or the Double Muzio, for example. On the other hand, there are several effective modern defenses, including the Modern proper and the Modern Cunningham.
One recently popular idea that appears not to work, however, is 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 c6. After 4.Nc3! exf4 5.Bc4! Qh4+ 6.Kf1 f3 7.d3 fxg2+ 8.Kxg2, the position favors White, I opine. E.g. 8...Bg4 9.Qd2. (It's a transpo to a known position of the Bishop's Gambit, of course.) Another fairly recent idea, 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Qh4+ 3.g3 Qe7 4.Nc3 exf4, I suspect on account of 5.Nf3 d5 6.Kf2! a little-known move that seems to refute Black's conception. In surprisingly many KGA positions, Kf2 is the right answer to Black's queen on e7.
|
Pages: 
C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit (Read 203646 times)
