Stockfish is voting King's gambit as an inaccuracy. Is it really so bad? The results are quite good.
If I were the human equivalent of Stockfish then I would probably win 9.99% of time against human opponents using King's Gambit. Humans are fallible and of highly variable abilities. King's Gambit played by a human won't win against Stockfish but it may win against 95% of human players given the player is at master level or above. In ordinary play, it is a fine opening to have in your opening repertoire and should give plenty of victories with accurate and blunder free play. Openings come and go but often they fall into disrepute because of declining results at master and above level. However we have to remember that perhaps over 95% of players will not be aware of all the vulnerabilities of a particular opening and it may still give good results up to ratings of 2200 or so.
That is, 99.99% (:
Vienna Gambit is better I think
en.chessbase.com/post/rajlich-busting-the-king-s-gambit-this-time-for-sure
I dont know what to think about that as Rajlich did not post the variations anywhere, but this may be of interest for anyone playing the kings gambit.
I dont know what to think about that as Rajlich did not post the variations anywhere, but this may be of interest for anyone playing the kings gambit.
its at the top of the article.
@SelfmateMan Yes - the article was an April Fool's joke.
Really? Where did you get that from?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.