King's Gambit Solved

[Narz]

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8047

IM and master programmer Vasik Rajlich has allegedly "solved" the king's gambit. And claims it loses by force in all lines except 3.Be2 (which draws).

Kind of scary (I suppose it shouldn't be, certainly such computing power can be put to more constructive use to serve mankind).

Evidently his research (aided by 300 cores of computing power) vindicated Bobby Fischer's claim to have busted the King's Gambit (though obviously he couldn't have seen all possible lines perfectly).

Well, there were a number of reasons for choosing it. One was that 50 years ago Bobby Fischer published a famous article, "A Bust to the King's Gambit", claiming to have done exactly that. I was curious to see how valid his conclusions were. Turns out they were amazingly accurate. The main line of the King's Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3, is indeed winning for Black. Moreover, the only winning move is 3... d6!, just as Fischer claimed. For instance the more popular 3...g5 allows White to draw after 4.h4! In fact, Fischer's main line holds up incredibly well: 3...d6! 4.Bc4 h6! 5.d4 g5! (an exclam denotes any move which gives a better theoretical result than every alternative), although some side-variations from his article do have inaccuracies.

[Panzar75]

So if you ever face the King's gambit as black you can now say "yeah, I had a clear win but I must have blundered there somewhere" as long as you played 3... d6

[Narz]

Yeah pretty much.

I'm sure the Blackmar-Diemer & Philidor Gambit (a couple I get played against me on occasion) are even more busted, but I probably don't need 30 cores to figure that out, just maybe five hours of disciplined study.

[Petek]

For the record, the ChessBase article was an April Fool's prank.

[Narz]

Ha, I did think it was pretty remarkable. I got played!

[Panzar75]

It's harder to realize when they publish the article on other dates than April 1.

[dusters]

What about Vienna gambit? I have been playing that for like 15 years now. Solid in IM level so far. And regular chess.com games net me lots of wins.

[Narz]

I like the Vienna gambit (though I've played it only rarely). What's your handle on chess.com?

[dusters]

Originally Posted by Narz

I like the Vienna gambit (though I've played it only rarely). What's your handle on chess.com?

It is Emily_fairy.

[Richard Cribb]

Funny. I think it was in 1976 Scientific American published an article claiming that a computer had proven that 1.h4 is a forced win for White...
3.Be2 is probably not White's best, but it happens to quite a subtle move, and Tartakower did rather well with it (If my memory doesn't deceive me, 1.5/3 against messrs. Yates, Alekhine and Capablanca in New York 1924). Nothing good to say about that Fischer article though. As so much with Fischer, it is overrated. 3..d6 is good, but so is 3...g5, 3...d5 and 3...Be7. Perhaps even 3...Ne7!?
And regarding gambits, I suppose the Latvian and Englund are closest to extinction. I also agree that the Blackmar-Diemer is quite suspicious.

Originally Posted by dusters

What about Vienna gambit? I have been playing that for like 15 years now. Solid in IM level so far. And regular chess.com games net me lots of wins.

I wouldn't really know since I prefer vegetative openings myself (1.c4!), but in my opinion the Kings Gambit proper offers more options.

[Blue Emu]

Originally Posted by dusters

What about Vienna gambit?

I've always felt that the Dunst (1. Nc3) is a much-under-rated opening. Not nearly as bad as it looks.

[dusters]

Originally Posted by Blue Emu

I've always felt that the Dunst (1. Nc3) is a much-under-rated opening. Not nearly as bad as it looks.

If I see that in competition, it usually leads to d4 later and thus completely different opening territory. Who would play e5 after Nc4?

[Richard Cribb]

Originally Posted by Blue Emu

I've always felt that the Dunst (1. Nc3) is a much-under-rated opening. Not nearly as bad as it looks.

It is not bad at all, but it doesn't have so much independent value. Usually it just transposes into some common opening, but of course Black should be careful not to be tricked out of his/her repertoire.

[Petek]

More from ChessBase on their April Fools prank:

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8067.

[Millman]

It should be no suprise that moving your f pawn near your king spells doom. There are exceptions like the Dutch defense but that's even suspect.

I've played Dutch more than King's gambit and don't like the games although I've won most. f4 and f5 tend to make your queen's bishop even worse imo.

Edit-no matter what opening your choose it feels like you need to gain great positional/material advantages before moving pawns around your king. (Basic strategy?)