TL Chess Match 4 - Page 16

Cuz it can lead to the scotch game, which is real cute

setting up for Ruy Lopez opening

It's standard, and standard is fun.

Ruy Lopez, standard, King's Gambit isn't viable it's obvious and the counters can be found on wikipedia, whereas opening Nf3 allows for all the "theorycrafting" thus making game more fun and exciting.

King's gambit is weird, and weird is fun.

Personally I think that Ruy Lopez leads to a rather enjoyable game. However I usually start with 1. d4, as I don't really like playing the Sicilian which usually follows

It's standard...IdrA would make this move

The King's Gambit is baller as dicks and we should go with it. Although 2. Nf3 is the highest-rated response in terms of victory. 2.f4 is the highest-rated response in terms of balling and being basically a baller. So I recommend we ball all day erry day and go for the King's Gambit like the ballers we are.

Look, to those of you who are afraid: The King's Gambit is book as book gets. Obviously, Ruy Lopez is Book, but if we throw out a 2. Nf3 we put the ball back in his court. He has many ways to respond and can dictate the progression of the opening. By playing the King's Gambit, he can only decline or accept (and will almost certainly decline) or play from a small number of somewhat ineffective counter-gambits. It buys us a LOT of space in the center of the board and lets us make a powerful kingside attack. Lastly, it's a really common line and is easy to play via wikipedia. It's standard and it's fun.

I understand why you would go 2. Nf3, but understand at the same time why 2. f4 is what ballers do all day when they ball.

Seriously, anyone claiming that the King's Gambit is unsound and can be countered easily better damn well be a Grandmaster, or at least an Internation Master.

I don't think anyone's claiming that Ng5 is a grand master, but on the other hand, this *IS* correspondence-style chess. He has access to opening books and other resources, as well as a lot of time to think about things-- but I still believe the King's Gambit is sound, since we have access to those things as well, and you see it played at a high level.

I'm just saying, only at the highest levels does any of that actually mean anything. All the resources and material in the world don't mean anything if you don't fully understand the position. The guides may tell you that x move will give you the best position against your opponent, but you still have to play it all the way to the end! No resource out there can explain what to do in every possible variation that stems from the King's Gambit, or from any opening for that matter.

• Excitement: the King's gambit is a very sharp line that can easily lead to a very tactical game, in the short term.
• Immediacy: sharp and pivotal decision points come immediately in the King's Gambit, as opposed to a slower, and often-played opening like Nf3, where more time will probably be spent following the textbook before getting to the crucial decisions some moves down the line.

Longer-term considerations:

• Central control: f4 strengthens our power in the pivotal central portion of the board--and if Black takes the gambit, as he likely would, he virtually concedes the center to us entirely. This will be a strong asset throughout the middlegame.
• Open f-file for our Rook: whether or not Black takes the gambit, we have the ability to half-open the f-file, often a very useful avenue for our Rook, especially if Black wishes to castle Kingside.

(I'm reversing the usual order of these spoilers, because I suspect that the arguments against this move are the first thing that will come to people's minds.)

• Wastes tempo: Moving the Queen out so early allows Black to gain at least one tempo by developing his King's Knight so as to attack the Queen, forcing us to move her again.
• Wastes further tempo or interferes with development: if we move the Queen back to where she came from, then we have essentially spent not one, but two moves developing nothing. If we move her to h3, she is subject to further attacks when Black uncovers his Queen's Bishop. On the other hand, if we move the Queen to e2, then she blocks our King's Bishop's path out, and if we move her to f3 (the most likely possibility), then she occupies the most desirable square for our King's Knight.

However, there are points in favor of this unusual move as well. Specifically,
[list][*]Dictates Black's set-up: more than any other non-gambit move, Qh5 allows us to force Black into a particular position, which he may not like. Specifically, after we threaten checkmate with Bc4, Black (assuming he does not wish to sacrifice a pawn) must
-either defend his f-pawn with the Queen, in which case, Black is saddled with the same development issues as described on our side in the spoiler above; whereas he may not (if he blocks his Knight with Qf6) even be able to gain a tempo after all.
- or play g6. If Black plays g6, he is virtually committed to fianchettoing his Bishop (otherwise g6 becomes a substantial weakness in his Kingside). However, Black's pawn on e4 blocking the h8-a1 diagonal makes a fianchettoed Kingside Bishop rather weak for the foreseeable future.[*]Long-term vs. short-term advantages: the tempo disadvantage that Qh5 gives us is short-term in nature, but the positional edge that it gives us is longer-term in nature. Since after all as White we do have a half-tempo to burn, it may be a worthwhile investment to trade our tempi in for the positional advantage described. If Black does not manage in turn to extract a solid advantage out of his tempi, then our longer-lasting positional advantage may prove the more telling.

Generally speaking, I'd argue that the types of positions that arise out of the Ruy Lopez have greater variety than those from the King's Gambit. It's also known as the 'Spanish torture' for a reason. Another point is that f4 is very committal, not too much flexibility (pawns can't go backwards).

We could also go into the Giuoco Piano or Scotch if you guys hate the Ruy so much, assuming of course that he doesn't go into the Petroff.

That said, I don't play e4 myself so I'm arguing from a general point of view

For those saying that 'the King's Gambit is not refuted' - I'm going to argue for a move that is more solid. I'm not a gambler by nature. If that's your style, then that's up to you, but I just think that Nf3 is more solid overall. I don't like assuming that my opponent doesn't know or will miss something.

That's reasonable to say. The King's gambit has a few moves that basically have to be played on both sides after black decides whether to accept or decline; but that doesn't mean it's not an interesting line. Regardless of which move we make, we can be certain that the black player WILL analyze it to death and find a way to convert any possible advantages into a more drawish position or a winning one for himself, since this is a correspondence chess game. I think that Nf3 might be a strong move, but f4 is more interesting.

If we do go for 2. Nf3 there's all kinds of interesting things (scotch, Evan's gambit) that are still available depending on his play, for sure. I just happen to prefer 2. f4 since it leads to bracing, assertive play. Either move is solid, don't get me wrong-- I just like f4.

Since 2. Nf3 seems to be winning by a pretty large margin at this point, I guess we have to figure out what our next plan would be, namely, do we play the Scotch or the Spanish game. I enjoy playing the Scotch more, but I don't have enough chess experience in me to know which line would be better in this situation.