What is your favourite opening?

[Sir Cromulent Sparkles]

A57 Benko Gambit Nescafe Frappe Gambit

i love this opening because it proves that brand awareness for a swiss maker of coffee includes indoctrinating chess opening devotees with a product line they may not have been conversant with.

people mention on here its difficult to raise money for chess. thats silly talk. why not sell the naming rights of opening systems to multinationals. wouldnt it be more fun to use such openings as .......

C42 petrov toyota vienta attack
D08 queens gambit declined albin counter gambit arnotts milk arrowroot variation
B10 caro kann pepsi max defence

or maybe the highly respected

B85 sicilian scheveningen smith and wesson
D88 gruenfeld microsoft-spassky variation
C95 ruy lopez breyer libra maxi pads variation

i also like the frankenstein dracula..........

[Basil]

What? No Tromp? This is not a poll - it's a joke

[ER]

What? No Tromp? This is not a poll - it's a joke

I think they have an "other" option!

[Rincewind]

I think they have an "other" option!

I didn't think anyone loved the Tromp. It was just played by Queens Gambit players who couldn't face the Nimzo.

[Tony Dowden]

The French. Its a well worn garment but always surprises me with new wrinkles. Against 1.e4 I've also played Pirc, Modern, Sicilian, Alekhine's, and even 1...e5.

I've experimented with the English in recent years (I wish I had KB's record with it!) but 1.e4 is a better way to use the White pieces unless playing someone who is very well prepared.

[Kevin Bonham]

I've experimented with the English in recent years (I wish I had KB's record with it!) but 1.e4 is a better way to use the White pieces unless playing someone who is very well prepared.

My record with the English is no longer as good as it was at the start of this thread. I've had three losses with it now, against Dyer, Markovitz and Steward. The Dyer one (first time he beat me when he was only rated 1300-odd) was a close game and was one of those things that happens at short time controls, not the fault of my opening play. The other two were lopsided, the Steward one in particular; my play in that game had no redeeming merit whatsoever.

[Tony Dowden]

I used to love the King's Gambit.

So much fun - and some romance - but I was too predictable and I'm sure it kept my rating down for about 10 years!

I finally realised that Bobby Fischer was right and the King's Knight Gambit was 'busted' in about half a dozen lines

It's a mean surprise weapon though

[Davidflude]

I used to love the King's Gambit.

So much fun - and some romance - but I was too predictable and I'm sure it kept my rating down for about 10 years!

I finally realised that Bobby Fischer was right and the King's Knight Gambit was 'busted' in about half a dozen lines

It's a mean surprise weapon though

The King's gambit is not busted. However it is fearsomely complex especially in correspondence. I would not play it unless I had both books by Thomas Johansson. A new book by English GM Shaw is expected soon.

Shocks by both players are well and truly possible. In correspondence recently my opponent produced a new idea not mentioned in a recent Kaissiber article. I cannot make further comments as the game is still in progress. I scored exceptionally well as black against the Kieseritzy Gambit. However two of my wins were a direct result of knowing the antidote to a line recommended as best by Gallagher.

[Tony Dowden]

The King's gambit is not busted.

Fair call

I meant both subjectively and temporally - that is to say for me in the late 1980s/early 1990's and if I was playing against 2000+ opponents it was pretty much busted

But on the bustedness scale its probably better than the Blackmar-Diemer but not too many other openings I can think of (not counting the off-beat stuff like the Englund Gambit and so forth).

By the way, David, I hope to see you at the MCC Cup event. I remember you at an NZ Congess in Upper Hutt waaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the 1970's ...

[jhughes]

Fair call

I meant both subjectively and temporally - that is to say for me in the late 1980s/early 1990's and if I was playing against 2000+ opponents it was pretty much busted

But on the bustedness scale its probably better than the Blackmar-Diemer but not too many other openings I can think of (not counting the off-beat stuff like the Englund Gambit and so forth).

By the way, David, I hope to see you at the MCC Cup event. I remember you at an NZ Congess in Upper Hutt waaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the 1970's ...

The Kings Gambit is not busted, full stop. Fischer himself played it, in fact at the top level it's more common than the Vienna game and the Bishop's opening.

[.]

The Kings Gambit is not busted, full stop. Fischer himself played it, in fact at the top level it's more common than the Vienna game and the Bishop's opening.

Yes. However, comparing opening theory in Fischer's times to opening theory in the present would be silly. Many advances in technology and population have enriched our understanding of the opening. In an objective sense, where the objective is to play the best game possible, the Vienna game and Bishop's opening have to be far superior to the King's gambit.

[Adamski]

In an objective sense, where the objective is to play the best game possible, the Vienna game and Bishop's opening have to be far superior to the King's gambit.

I disagree. The King's Gambit gives White more winnng chances than either of those other 2 openings.

[.]

I disagree. The King's Gambit gives White more winnng chances than either of those other 2 openings.

Between humans? I agree with this also; however, if super-computers are playing I doubt this entirely. The reason I use super-computers as the base is because they are superior to humans at this time and will be more so when we can make them take all the best from human and computer-like chess. Seeing as I set the objective as, 'to play the best game possible,' it only seems fitting that we use the closest current example to players of the best game possible - computers.

2.Nc3: Games: 4,948| Wins: 39.1%| Draws: 29%| Losses: 31.9%

2.f4: Games: 4,529| Wins: 40.3%| Draws: 19.5%| Losses: 40.3%

2.Bc4: Games: 4,039| Wins: 39.6%| Draws: 31.5%| Losses: 28.9%

Source: (http://www.chess.com/explorer/) Accessed at 6:34PM, 1/5/10

From here we can see that at master level it does offer, negligbly, better winning chances; however, it comes at risk: the King's gambit has a far higher losing rate. Which when compared to the amount of winning oppurtunity gained it doesn't look like that great an expedition.

So if you are a risk loving player then the King's gambit is certainly for you. Although keep in mind if playing the best game possible is your goal then I don't think it should come to mind. Additionally, 1. e4 e5 2. d4... scores better than the King's gambit, although from less games, it certainly doesn't get the same approval rate.

[Sheroff]

"The King's Gambit is Busted" by Fischer is a must-read article for anyone who plays this opening as white or black. Certainly there are not many top GMs playing the Gambit these days, mainly because there are so many ways for Black to equalize or better. For Black, find a system against it that works, and stick to it. There are several. 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Nf6 is stronger than it looks - White does better with 4.Nc3 d5 5.exd5 than the aggessive but relatively harmless 4.e5, which puts the Black knight on h5, a dandy square. Also interesting is 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 3.Nf3 f5!?, which can surprise unsuspecting White players and get them into all sorts of strife if they try a direct refutation. I can't remember the last time I lost a tournament game as Black against the King's Gambit, but I have plenty of easy crushes as Black. I love seeing 2.f4...but stop just short of salivating...

The King's Gambit is sounder than, say, the Albin Counter-Gambit (which is fun to play, but leaves little room for error), but the sharp fangs it had in the old days have been largely blunted by more modern defensive theory.

The Evans Gambit, well there's another story...

Cheers,

Kevin Casey

[Kevin Bonham]

The title of the Fischer article for those wanting to look for it is actually "A Bust To The King's Gambit". Text here (PDF):

http://www.academicchess.org/images/...ischerbust.pdf