lichess.org
Donate

Analyzing Games Based on Opening #6 - King's Gambit

forsoothplays

Interesting analysis. I have some notes of my own to part one if you'd like.

  • I must admit reading someone say that 2...d5 is the strongest answer to the King's Gambit is a new one for me. What I have heard (and experienced with both colors) is that 2...ef4 leading to the Classical is the strongest, with 2...d5 being the most practical as it leads to the Modern Defense (1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.ed5 ef4 4.Nf3) but dodges the Bishop's Gambit. (The traditional move order was 2...ef4 3. Nf3 d5 4.ed5, but this would allow 3.Bc4!?; not objectively threatening, but it is another obscure variation to have to prepare a rigorous, organized defense for. Thus the contemporary move order is played to economize on theoretical overhead.)

  • 3.Bc4 does not ignore the threat of 3...Qh4. It prepares for it by vacating the f1 square for White's king, where it is (relatively) safe. This theme is also used by White against the Cunningham Defense.

  • 3...d6 is a main variation, called the Fischer Defense after Bobby Fischer who pioneered it. You guessed correctly! While it does block in the Bf8, it also denies White's favorite square for his knight, e5. Also, the bishop often goes to g7 in the King's Gambit so it is not as blocked in as you might think. The real problem with the Fischer Defense is that it gives White time to play 4.d4 achieving the central domination that motivated 2.f4. 4.Bc4!? by Spassky is actually a theoretical inaccuracy and Black can get a good game if he knows the proper response, but even most modern players are not aware. Moreover Spassky was not a theoretician and liked to stand on his own two feet in the opening, especially in the King's Gambit.

  • Black's hanging on to f4 with g7-g5 is optically similar to the Slav idea of holding on to c4, but the consequences are different. In the case of the Slav Defense, Black is fighting to get a queenside pawn storm rolling in order to try to turn his queenside majority into a passed pawn. If White prevents this usually Black gets some other resource for his trouble, usually restriction of the queenside pieces or undermining White's center. This relatively slower play means that White can afford a somewhat meek developing move like Bf1-e2 and can even afford to ignore Black's extra c-pawn in some variations, such as the Anti-Moscow Gambit of the Semi-Slav Defense. In the King's Gambit, Black can assault White's king directly, so White does not have time for slow development schemes like b2-b3 or Bc1-d2. This leaves White with no good squares to develop his dark-squared bishop to. Thus the pawn on f4 is actually a huge thorn in White's side if he cannot capture it or provoke its advance. This is why Spassky attacked it with g2-g3 in spite of the ramifications this could have for the safety of his king.

Well, That's enough theory. Anyway, why do you think it's so important for White to not allow: 10.d5? Ne5—?

Interesting analysis. I have some notes of my own to part one if you'd like. - I must admit reading someone say that 2...d5 is the strongest answer to the King's Gambit is a new one for me. What I have heard (and experienced with both colors) is that 2...ef4 leading to the Classical is the strongest, with 2...d5 being the most practical as it leads to the Modern Defense (1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.ed5 ef4 4.Nf3) but dodges the Bishop's Gambit. (The traditional move order was 2...ef4 3. Nf3 d5 4.ed5, but this would allow 3.Bc4!?; not objectively threatening, but it is another obscure variation to have to prepare a rigorous, organized defense for. Thus the contemporary move order is played to economize on theoretical overhead.) - 3.Bc4 does not ignore the threat of 3...Qh4. It prepares for it by vacating the f1 square for White's king, where it is (relatively) safe. This theme is also used by White against the Cunningham Defense. - 3...d6 is a main variation, called the Fischer Defense after Bobby Fischer who pioneered it. You guessed correctly! While it does block in the Bf8, it also denies White's favorite square for his knight, e5. Also, the bishop often goes to g7 in the King's Gambit so it is not as blocked in as you might think. The _real_ problem with the Fischer Defense is that it gives White time to play 4.d4 achieving the central domination that motivated 2.f4. 4.Bc4!? by Spassky is actually a theoretical inaccuracy and Black can get a good game if he knows the proper response, but even most modern players are not aware. Moreover Spassky was not a theoretician and liked to stand on his own two feet in the opening, especially in the King's Gambit. - Black's hanging on to f4 with g7-g5 is optically similar to the Slav idea of holding on to c4, but the consequences are different. In the case of the Slav Defense, Black is fighting to get a queenside pawn storm rolling in order to try to turn his queenside majority into a passed pawn. If White prevents this usually Black gets some other resource for his trouble, usually restriction of the queenside pieces or undermining White's center. This relatively slower play means that White can afford a somewhat meek developing move like Bf1-e2 and can even afford to ignore Black's extra c-pawn in some variations, such as the Anti-Moscow Gambit of the Semi-Slav Defense. In the King's Gambit, Black can assault White's king directly, so White does not have time for slow development schemes like b2-b3 or Bc1-d2. This leaves White with no good squares to develop his dark-squared bishop to. Thus the pawn on f4 is actually a huge thorn in White's side if he cannot capture it or provoke its advance. This is why Spassky attacked it with g2-g3 in spite of the ramifications this could have for the safety of his king. --- Well, That's enough theory. Anyway, why do you think it's so important for White to not allow: 10.d5? Ne5—?
Krosis666

41...b5?? was a horrible blunder. 41...Rb5 (plus other moves) was correct and Black wins.

41...b5?? was a horrible blunder. 41...Rb5 (plus other moves) was correct and Black wins.
gh0strpm

@forsoothplays said ^

Interesting analysis. I have some notes of my own to part one if you'd like.

  • I must admit reading someone say that 2...d5 is the strongest answer to the King's Gambit is a new one for me. What I have heard (and experienced with both colors) is that 2...ef4 leading to the Classical is the strongest, with 2...d5 being the most practical as it leads to the Modern Defense (1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.ed5 ef4 4.Nf3) but dodges the Bishop's Gambit. (The traditional move order was 2...ef4 3. Nf3 d5 4.ed5, but this would allow 3.Bc4!?; not objectively threatening, but it is another obscure variation to have to prepare a rigorous, organized defense for. Thus the contemporary move order is played to economize on theoretical overhead.)

  • 3.Bc4 does not ignore the threat of 3...Qh4. It prepares for it by vacating the f1 square for White's king, where it is (relatively) safe. This theme is also used by White against the Cunningham Defense.

  • 3...d6 is a main variation, called the Fischer Defense after Bobby Fischer who pioneered it. You guessed correctly! While it does block in the Bf8, it also denies White's favorite square for his knight, e5. Also, the bishop often goes to g7 in the King's Gambit so it is not as blocked in as you might think. The real problem with the Fischer Defense is that it gives White time to play 4.d4 achieving the central domination that motivated 2.f4. 4.Bc4!? by Spassky is actually a theoretical inaccuracy and Black can get a good game if he knows the proper response, but even most modern players are not aware. Moreover Spassky was not a theoretician and liked to stand on his own two feet in the opening, especially in the King's Gambit.

  • Black's hanging on to f4 with g7-g5 is optically similar to the Slav idea of holding on to c4, but the consequences are different. In the case of the Slav Defense, Black is fighting to get a queenside pawn storm rolling in order to try to turn his queenside majority into a passed pawn. If White prevents this usually Black gets some other resource for his trouble, usually restriction of the queenside pieces or undermining White's center. This relatively slower play means that White can afford a somewhat meek developing move like Bf1-e2 and can even afford to ignore Black's extra c-pawn in some variations, such as the Anti-Moscow Gambit of the Semi-Slav Defense. In the King's Gambit, Black can assault White's king directly, so White does not have time for slow development schemes like b2-b3 or Bc1-d2. This leaves White with no good squares to develop his dark-squared bishop to. Thus the pawn on f4 is actually a huge thorn in White's side if he cannot capture it or provoke its advance. This is why Spassky attacked it with g2-g3 in spite of the ramifications this could have for the safety of his king.

Well, That's enough theory. Anyway, why do you think it's so important for White to not allow: 10.d5? Ne5—?

this is very deep - thank you, but I tried to explain it simple
yes d5 is a move inclining to pushin a Pawn in the center, but when you do this, not only Ne5, but e5 becomes a hole for quite some time - which Black should take advantage of, and c6 also attacks d5

@forsoothplays said [^](/forum/redirect/post/qSPa87Hj) > Interesting analysis. I have some notes of my own to part one if you'd like. > > - I must admit reading someone say that 2...d5 is the strongest answer to the King's Gambit is a new one for me. What I have heard (and experienced with both colors) is that 2...ef4 leading to the Classical is the strongest, with 2...d5 being the most practical as it leads to the Modern Defense (1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.ed5 ef4 4.Nf3) but dodges the Bishop's Gambit. (The traditional move order was 2...ef4 3. Nf3 d5 4.ed5, but this would allow 3.Bc4!?; not objectively threatening, but it is another obscure variation to have to prepare a rigorous, organized defense for. Thus the contemporary move order is played to economize on theoretical overhead.) > > - 3.Bc4 does not ignore the threat of 3...Qh4. It prepares for it by vacating the f1 square for White's king, where it is (relatively) safe. This theme is also used by White against the Cunningham Defense. > > - 3...d6 is a main variation, called the Fischer Defense after Bobby Fischer who pioneered it. You guessed correctly! While it does block in the Bf8, it also denies White's favorite square for his knight, e5. Also, the bishop often goes to g7 in the King's Gambit so it is not as blocked in as you might think. The _real_ problem with the Fischer Defense is that it gives White time to play 4.d4 achieving the central domination that motivated 2.f4. 4.Bc4!? by Spassky is actually a theoretical inaccuracy and Black can get a good game if he knows the proper response, but even most modern players are not aware. Moreover Spassky was not a theoretician and liked to stand on his own two feet in the opening, especially in the King's Gambit. > > - Black's hanging on to f4 with g7-g5 is optically similar to the Slav idea of holding on to c4, but the consequences are different. In the case of the Slav Defense, Black is fighting to get a queenside pawn storm rolling in order to try to turn his queenside majority into a passed pawn. If White prevents this usually Black gets some other resource for his trouble, usually restriction of the queenside pieces or undermining White's center. This relatively slower play means that White can afford a somewhat meek developing move like Bf1-e2 and can even afford to ignore Black's extra c-pawn in some variations, such as the Anti-Moscow Gambit of the Semi-Slav Defense. In the King's Gambit, Black can assault White's king directly, so White does not have time for slow development schemes like b2-b3 or Bc1-d2. This leaves White with no good squares to develop his dark-squared bishop to. Thus the pawn on f4 is actually a huge thorn in White's side if he cannot capture it or provoke its advance. This is why Spassky attacked it with g2-g3 in spite of the ramifications this could have for the safety of his king. > > --- > > Well, That's enough theory. Anyway, why do you think it's so important for White to not allow: 10.d5? Ne5—? this is very deep - thank you, but I tried to explain it simple yes d5 is a move inclining to pushin a Pawn in the center, but when you do this, not only Ne5, but e5 becomes a hole for quite some time - which Black should take advantage of, and c6 also attacks d5
gh0strpm

@Krosis666 said ^

41...b5?? was a horrible blunder. 41...Rb5 (plus other moves) was correct and Black wins.

ye pretty much, it blocks the Rook's vision. He must thought he could've pushed later and avoid the consequences

@Krosis666 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/WbYbx3ON) > 41...b5?? was a horrible blunder. 41...Rb5 (plus other moves) was correct and Black wins. ye pretty much, it blocks the Rook's vision. He must thought he could've pushed later and avoid the consequences