ghenghisclown wrote on 03/17/12 at 20:37:55:


As an aside, Kaufman recommends players pick up the Moscow Variation of the Queen's Gambit in his repertoire book. It doesn't necessarily follow that a line is good or easy just because several people recommend it.

Personally, if you want easy, I like Karpov's answer, to accept the gambit then strive for c6 and d5.

I just felt it is the easiest to learn. You get that opening so rarely, it just doesn't make much sense to me to learn a super sharp line that you will have forgotten if you need it. Also: good development and piece play always is nice

derdudea wrote on 03/09/12 at 21:43:40:


Yep, always play something you believe in, not something your opponent believes in.

It's not foolish at all to attack an opponent who plays only a single opening. What is foolish is to come into such a game only half-prepared. The advantage of a narrow repertoire is that it's usually bullet-proof and you're gonna know the ideas behind the opening better than your opponent.

The disadvantage is that it can be attacked by an opponent who has found a SPECIFIC line.

From everything I've read, you never found that specific line to test your opponent.

It's a pretty brave choice letting the opponent go in for a Muzio Gambit- as Black I have traditionally preferred to enter the Hanstein with ...Nc6 and ...Bg7, and establishing a f4-g5-h6 pawn chain.  (That line is far less sedate than its reputation if my games in it are anything to go by- most of them have got pretty wild by around move 15).  But if you fancy your chances against the Muzio then by all means go ahead!

The game is over and I admit, I should have been punished for playing an opening I have no experience with. It was a bad idea to hope for so much opening advantage, that my lack of familiarity with King´s gambit positions and my bad tactical play in open positions would not decide the game.

I decided to play mainlines, because my opponent always played Nf3/Bc4 and later 0-0 and d4, which I guessed would lead to the Muzio, which I prepared.

N.N. (1750) - derdudea (1930)
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.0–0 gxf3 6.Qxf3 Qf6 7.d3 b5 8.Bb3 End of preparation - or to be precise, what I remembered over the board. After the next few moves, which where acceptable:
8.Bb3 Nc6 9.e5 Lc5+ 10.Kh1 Df5 11.Lxf4 Sge7 I got a pretty good position, but not good enough to win right away. So chess had to be played and the game continued with a each player throwing away the win about three or four times. Finally, I won, but it was like playing russian roulette.

Goodbye to the King´s Gambit and this section!

Just to clarify the original post: you face a guy that exchanges on the french, where you somehow expect he is going for a draw. On 1...e5 however you expect him to play the King's Gambit? That sounds a bit strange to me, to be honest. If he's more after a draw, wouldn't he play something like the Italian, Four Knights etc.?

Alright, give that he plays the King's Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 3.Nf3 f5 would be me offbeat recommendation (already given by Alias below). This is an aggressive line, almost unknown, and even not refuted at all  The best reply may be 4.d3... and that hardly scares black I guess.