/csg/ Chess General

Chess General: Grunfeld Defense Edition. Famous/ Favorite games edition. Discuss openings, theories, pro discussion, etc

Other urls found in this thread:

chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070540
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

bump

>inb4 that guy who worships Bill Wall and thinks that Bird's Opening is acceptable at all

>when you want to work on your kings gambit but all the people online play sicilian

...

No it isn't. The Sicilian is no more complicated than any given open game opening. It just has more possible branchings, but as long as you understand the general pawn structure and how it's supposed to work for you, you can muddle through with a minimum of book knowledge, at least against other 1600ish players.

The most complex openings are some of the Indian Defenses, which can get really positional and subtle. It's true that certain Sicilian variations like the Nadjorf are ridiculously confusing, but unless you're a GM, you probably won't play those anyway.

The best way to get out of playing a Sicilian is to respond with 2. c4, thereby transposing into an English Opening.

>I absolutely LOVE leaving a huge and totally unecessary hole on d4 when my opponent has already pushed his c pawn so can develop his queenside knight easily.

This is known as the Staunton-Cochrane Variation incidentally, because it appeared in a famous game played by Howard Staunton and John Cochrane in 1842.

Here we see it (via transposition) in Kasparov-Beliavsky, 1991.

chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070540

1. e4 c5 2. c4 Nc6 3. Nf3

d4 problem take care of.

But I was trying to work on my Kings Gambit

bump

Temporarily patched. That's a hole you'll have to be covering the entire game. When he moves his bishop to g5? Or throws some pawns in? Or gets his other knight ready to support the one on c6 when you get to d4?


Why?

I want to be Paul Morphy

The first step to playing like Morphy is to not do stupid shit.

bump

mfw my dad subscribes to chess.com instead of using lichechess to play with me

It´s complicated for white too

>Being white
>Giving up all initiative and sharp lines from move 2
>Giving up a central square on my own territory from move 2
To do something like that without cringe you have to be

There's nothing stupid about playing the Kings Gambit against amateurs though?

>When you want to work on your Grünfeld and they play Trompowsky

I hate when weak players just memorize marginal theory and messy lines to avoid actually playing. So when they play Trompowsky I get even sharpier with black:

1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.Bf4 c5 4.d5 Qb6 5.Bc1 e6 6.f3 Nf6 7.c4 exd5 8.cxd5 c4!? 9.e3 Bc5 and the most developed white piece will be his King. Pic related.

The problem with King´s Gambit is the same that with all non-optimal white openings: They doesn´t trouble black if he knows what he is doing.
It´s a perfectly playable opening (look for Spassky-Fischer games), but if you want to guarantee some little advantage against strong opponents you should probably play Ruy Lopez.

One of the greatest specialists on King´s Gambit is Joe Gallagher, and he has make beautiful games with it. But at the moment he played at high level it was like offering draw in the second move.
Shirov for example prepared a long theorical forced line to get an equal endgame, and the winning the endgame with black, being a strongest player. After something like that you have to choose between changing your entire repertoire with the time and effort involved, or just keep mediocre forever.

tl;dr: King´s Gambit is great below MI level, or as surprise weapon. Only if you want to become really strong someday (MI or superior) you should work on something better.