| Openingname: | King's Gambit |
| Moves: | 1.e4 e5 2.f4 |
| Eco: | C30–C39 |
| Birth: | No later than 16th century |
| Parentopening: | Open Game |
| Chessgid: | 101115&move=2.5&moves=e4.e5.f4&nodes=21720.21721.101115 |
The King's Gambit is a chess opening that begins with the moves:
1. e4 e5
2. f4
White offers a pawn to divert the black e-pawn. If Black accepts the gambit, White may play d4 and Bxf4, regaining the gambit pawn with domination, or direct their forces against the weak square f7 with moves such as Nf3, Bc4, 0-0, and g3. A downside to the King's Gambit is that it weakens White's king's position, exposing it to the latent threat of ...Qh4+ (or), which may force White to give up castling rights.
The King's Gambit is one of the oldest documented openings, appearing in one of the earliest chess books, Luis Ramírez de Lucena's Repetición de Amores y Arte de Ajedrez (1497). It was examined by the 17th-century Italian chess player Giulio Cesare Polerio.[1] The King's Gambit was one of the most popular openings until the late 19th century, when improvements in defensive technique led to its decline in popularity. It is infrequently seen at master level today, as Black has several methods to obtain, but is still popular at amateur level.
The King's Gambit was one of the most popular openings for over 300 years, and has been played by many of the strongest players in many of the greatest, including the Immortal Game. Nevertheless, players have held widely divergent views on it. François-André Danican Philidor (1726–1795), the greatest player and theorist of his day, wrote that the King's Gambit should end in a draw with best play by both sides, stating that "a gambit equally well attacked and defended is never a decisive [game], either on one side or the other." Writing over 150 years later, Siegbert Tarrasch, one of the world's strongest players in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, pronounced the opening "a decisive mistake" and wrote that "it is almost madness to play the King's Gambit." Similarly, future world champion Bobby Fischer wrote a famous article, "A Bust to the King's Gambit", in which he stated, "In my opinion the King's Gambit is busted. It loses by force" and offered his Fischer Defense (3...d6) as a refutation.[2] [3] FM Graham Burgess, in his book The Mammoth Book of Chess, noted the discrepancy between the King's Gambit and Wilhelm Steinitz's accumulation theory. Steinitz had argued that an attack is only justified when a player has an advantage, and an advantage is only obtainable after the opponent makes a mistake. Since 1...e5 does not look like a blunder, White should therefore not be launching an attack.
While the King's Gambit Accepted was a staple of Romantic era chess, the opening began to decline with the development of opening theory and improvements in defensive technique in the late 19th century. By the 1920s, 1.e4 openings declined in popularity with the rise of the hypermodern school, with many players switching to 1.d4 and 1.c4 openings and . After World War II, 1.e4 openings became more popular again, with David Bronstein being the first grandmaster in decades to use the King's Gambit in serious play. He inspired Boris Spassky to also take up the King's Gambit, although Spassky was not willing to risk using the opening in any of his World Championship matches. Spassky did beat many strong players with it, however, including Bobby Fischer,[4] Zsuzsa Polgar,[5] and a famous against Bronstein himself.[6]
In 2012, an April Fools' Day prank by Chessbase in association with Vasik Rajlich—author of chess engine Rybka—claimed to have proven to a 99.99999999% certainty that the King's Gambit is at best a draw for White, but only after 3.Be2.[7] [8] Revealing the prank, Rajlich admitted that current computer technology is nowhere near solving such a task.[9]
The King's Gambit is rare in modern high-level play.[10] The main reason is that it is hard to gain an opening advantage with White against strong opponents, with GM Matthew Sadler once joking that the dream of every King's Gambit player is a "worse but holdable ending".[11] A handful of grandmasters have continued to use it, including Joseph Gallagher, Hikaru Nakamura, Baskaran Adhiban, Nigel Short, and Alexei Fedorov, albeit never as a main weapon.
The Kieseritzky Gambit, 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5, is considered by modern writers such as Shaw and Gallagher to be the main line after 3...g5. It was popularized by Lionel Kieseritzky in the 1840s and used successfully by Wilhelm Steinitz. Boris Spassky used it to beat Bobby Fischer in a famous game at Mar del Plata in 1960.[14] The main line of the Kieseritzky Gambit is considered to be 5...Nf6 (Berlin Defense) 6.Bc4 d5 7.exd5 Bd6 8.d4 Nh5 9.0-0 Qxh4 10.Qe1 Qxe1 11.Rxe1 0-0 12.Bb3 Bf5. The Long Whip Variation, 5...h5?! 6.Bc4 Rh7 (or 6...Nh6) is considered old-fashioned and risky, as Black loses a lot of time attempting to hold on to the pawn.
4.h4 g4 5.Ng5 is the Allgaier Gambit,[15] intending 5...h6 6.Nxf7. This knight sacrifice is considered unsound.[16]
Similar lines are the Ghulam Kassim Gambit, 4.Bc4 g4 5.d4, and the McDonnell Gambit, 4.Bc4 g4 5.Nc3. These are generally considered inferior to the Muzio, which has the advantage of reinforcing White's attack along the f-file. Also inferior is the Lolli Gambit 4.Bc4 g4 5.Bxf7+, which leaves White with insufficient compensation for the piece after 5...Kxf7 6.Ne5+ Ke8 7.Qxg4 Nf6 8.Qxf4 d6.
The Salvio Gambit, 4.Bc4 g4 5.Ne5 Qh4+ 6.Kf1, is considered better for Black due to the insecurity of White's king. Black may play safely with 6...Nh6 (Silberschmidt Variation), or counter-sacrifice with 6...f3 (Cochrane Gambit) or 6...Nc6 (Viennese Variation).
After 4...Bg7 5.d4 g4, Simon Williams advocates 6.Bxf4 gxf3 in his DVD and Chess.com video series.[24] White is down a knight, but has a strong attack. The Quaade Gambit has recently been advocated by Daniel King in his PowerPlay series for Chessbase.
To avoid having to play Ke2, 4.Bc4 is White's most popular response.[28] Black can play 4...Bh4+ anyway, forcing 5.Kf1 (or else the wild Bertin Gambit or Three Pawns' Gambit, 5.g3 fxg3 6.0-0 gxh2+ 7.Kh1, played in the nineteenth century). In modern practice, it is more common for Black to simply develop instead with 4...Nf6 5.e5 Ng4, known as the Modern Cunningham. An under-explored but seemingly playable line here is 5...Ne4!?, the Euwe Variation, which has a number of trappy ideas.
See main article: King's Gambit, Fischer Defense. "The refutation of any gambit begins with accepting it. In my opinion the King's Gambit is busted. It loses by force." — R. Fischer, "A Bust to the King's Gambit"
The Fischer Defense (3.Nf3 d6), although previously known, was advocated by Bobby Fischer after he was defeated by Boris Spassky in a Kieseritzky Gambit at the 1960 Mar del Plata tournament. Fischer then decided to refute the King's Gambit, and the next year the American Chess Quarterly published his analysis of 3...d6, which he called "a high-class waiting move".[2] [3]
The point is that after 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 White cannot continue with 6.Ne5 as in the Kieseritzky Gambit, 6.Ng5 is unsound because of 6...f6 trapping the knight, and 6.Nfd2 blocks the bishop on c1. This leaves the move 6.Ng1 as the only option, when after six moves neither side has developed a piece. The resulting slightly odd position offers White good attacking chances. A typical continuation is 6.Ng1 Bh6 7.Ne2 Qf6 8.Nbc3 c6 9.g3 f3 10.Nf4 Qe7 with an unclear position (Korchnoi/Zak).
The main alternative to 4.d4 is 4.Bc4. Play usually continues 4...h6 5.d4 g5 6.0-0 Bg7, transposing into the Hanstein Gambit, which can also be reached via 3...g5 or 3...h6.
See main article: Bishop's Gambit. Of the alternatives to 3.Nf3, the most important is the Bishop's Gambit, 3.Bc4. White allows 3...Qh4+ 4.Kf1, losing the right to castle, but this loses time for Black after the inevitable Nf3 and White will develop rapidly. White also has the option of delaying Nf3, however, and can instead play g3, after which the game becomes quite sharp, with White having the option of Qf3 with an attack on f7, or Kg2 threatening hxg3. This idea is advocated, among others, by GM Simon Williams.
Korchnoi and Zak recommend as best for Black 3...Nf6 4.Nc3 c6, or the alternative move order 3...c6 4.Nc3 Nf6. After 5.Bb3 d5 6.exd5 cxd5 7.d4 Bd6 8.Nge2 0-0 9.0-0 g5 10.Nxd5 Nc6, Black was somewhat better in Spielmann–Bogoljubow, Märisch Ostrau 1923.[33]
Black's other main option is 3...d5, returning the pawn immediately. Play might continue 3...d5 4.Bxd5 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Nf3 Bxc3 7.dxc3 c6 8.Bc4 Qxd1+ 9.Kxd1 0-0 10.Bxf4 Nxe4 with an equal position (Bilguer Handbuch, Korchnoi/Zak).
3...Nc6!?, Maurian Defense, is relatively untested, but if White plays 4.Nf3 Black can transpose into the Hanstein Gambit after 4...g5 5.d4 Bg7 6.c3 d6 7.0-0 h6 (Neil McDonald, 1998). John Shaw wrote that 3...Nc6 is a "refutation" of the Bishop's Gambit, as he says that Black is better in all variations.
Steinitz's 3...Ne7 and the 3...f5 (best met by 4.Qe2!) are generally considered inferior.
Other 3rd moves for White are rarely played. Some of these are:
Black can decline the offered pawn, or offer a .
See main article: King's Gambit, Falkbeer Countergambit. The Falkbeer Countergambit is named after the 19th-century Austrian master Ernst Falkbeer. It runs 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 e4, in which Black sacrifices a pawn in return for quick and easy development. It was once considered good for Black and scored well, but White obtains some advantage with the response 4.d3!, and the line fell out of favor after the 1930s.
A more modern interpretation of the Falkbeer is 2...d5 3.exd5 c6!?, as advocated by Aron Nimzowitsch. Black is not concerned about pawns and aims for early piece activity. White has a better pawn structure and prospects of a better endgame. The main line continues 4.Nc3 exf4 5.Nf3 Bd6 6.d4 Ne7 7.dxc6 Nbxc6, giving positions analogous to the Modern Variation of the gambit accepted.
One rarely seen line is the Rotlewi Countergambit:[37] 3.Nf3 d6 4.b4. The idea of the gambit is similar to that seen in the Evans Gambit of the Italian Game. White sacrifices a pawn to try to build a strong center with 4...Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5 (or 5...Ba5) 6.fxe5 dxe5 7.d4. This line is considered slightly dubious, however.
Other options in the KGD are possible, though unusual, such as the Adelaide Countergambit 2...Nc6 3.Nf3 f5, advocated by Tony Miles; 2...d6, which is the way the King’s Gambit was declined the first known time it was played,[38] when after 3.Nf3, best is 3...exf4 transposing to the Fischer Defense (though 2...d6 invites White to play 3.d4 instead); and 2...Nf6 3.fxe5 Nxe4 4.Nf3 Ng5! 5.d4 Nxf3+ 6.Qxf3 Qh4+ 7.Qf2 Qxf2+ 8.Kxf2 with a small endgame advantage, as played in the 1968 game between Bobby Fischer and Bob Wade in Vinkovci.[39] The greedy 2...Qf6 (known as the Nordwalde Variation), intending 3...Qxf4, is considered dubious. Also dubious are the Keene Defense: 2...Qh4+ 3.g3 Qe7 and the Mafia Defense: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 c5.[40]
2...f5 is among the oldest countergambits in KGD, known from a game published in 1625 by Gioachino Greco.[41] Vincenz Hruby also played it against Mikhail Chigorin in 1882.[42] It is nonetheless considered dubious because 3.exf5 with the threat of Qh5+ gives White a good game. The variation is sometimes named the Pantelidakis Countergambit because GM Larry Evans answered a question from Peter Pantelidakis of Chicago about it in one of his columns in Chess Life and Review.
In several lines of the Vienna Game White offers a sort of delayed King's Gambit. In the Vienna Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4), Black should reply 3...d5, since 3....exf4 4.e5 forces the knight to retreat. 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 may lead to the Hamppe–Muzio Gambit after 4.Nf3 g5 5.Bc4 g4 6.0-0 gxf3 7.Qxf3, or to the Steinitz Gambit after 4.d4 Qh4+ 5.Ke2. Both of these lines may be reached via the King's Gambit proper, but the Vienna move order is more common.
White may also offer the gambit in the Bishop's Opening, e.g. 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.f4, though this is uncommon.
The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings has ten codes for the King's Gambit, C30 through C39.