I have observed that the King's Gambit is usually not played at international level. Is there any specific reason for this?
|
|
One of the more common lines for the King's Gambit is accepting, followed by I am not sure about other lines, but likely top grandmasters have analyzed them, and come to similar conclusions that white's position is not a good one. Remark: Interestingly Fischer himself played the gambit a few times with great success, but he opened |
|||||
|
|
David Bronstein, in his book "The Modern Chess Self-Tutor," gives an interesting explanation for not playing it. Don't forget, he's used it many times in GM practice, including memorable games against Tal and Petrosian (the latter was an exhibition game in which they explore more fully an idea from an Alekhine-Keres game). His reasoning for |
||||
|
|
|
The King's Gambit is considered inferior because white is sacrificing king safety along with a pawn on move 2. Furthermore, although white would get an attack going along the f file in Morphy's day, now the correct defensive ideas are known for black and white has a harder time of it. That said, the King's Gambit is a great weapon at the club level. In fact, Quality Chess will be releasing a book on the King's Gambit very soon. |
|||
|
|
|
A number of players have come to the conclusion that In a King's Gambit, White plays The advantage of However, all that might change tomorrow, if someone discovers a new line or variation. |
|||||||||
|
|
One item that is not a reason that the King's Gambit isn't played more at the international level is this specious article from Chessbase News: "Busting the King's Gambit, this time for sure." In the article, Vasik Rajlich, the author of Rybka, claims that all moves but |
|||||
|
