I'm an old fan of the Kings Gambit. And it shows if carlsen uses this opening it is not refuted. Or in other words - if the petroff is a draw - why not having fun with the KG. Shirovs evaluation =+ is not true.

Ouch! Don't like your mistakes being pointed out, do you Peter? LOL

@Peter
"and who would mind to see it more often as a way to avoid the Petroff"

Answer: Me!
What a silly reason for playing the KG. Unfair and fantasist about both openings!

It's an awesome video with Radjabov. Love it that he stresses the beauty of the come continuously.

No, I don't mind, as I make many every day, and usually I'm willing to correct them. It was the triumphant tone that bothered me, reminding me of a certain Steve.

Thanks. Good suggestion and silly that I didn't think of it before. I've added links to the .mov (h264) versions.

Awesome report as usual.

One small thing, care to encode your video to quick time or h264 for those who cannot watch flash video?

Thank you!

Anand is a more accurate player than Carlsen. Carlsen just more willing to take risks against weaker players, and has more energy to fight in every game. This is why his rating is higher than Anand's. By the way topalov's live rating is still higher than Anands but how many people would claim he is the better player?

OK, 'highest rated' is more accurate. Cool down, MXT.

"He [Carlsen] is now clearly the strongest player to ever try the most romantic of all openings, the King’s Gambit, in an official game..."

Oh yeah? So Carlsen is now "clearly" stronger than Fischer is he? And Spassky, and Steinitz, and Rubinstein...

You read it first at Chess Vibes!

1 e4! FTW

TWIC calls the line "King's gambit, modern variation". It's wrong. It is Falkbeer something (maybe "modern"? Since when?)
If they mean it is a modern aproach to the KG, so are ALL present-day aproaches to KG!
If they mean it is modern because there is no identical game from move x on, that is perfectely normal, and surely it is not because of 4. ... exf4 which is not the main line, but anyway has centuries already!

Chessbase writes even worse. They imply the opening was known as "refuted"!! LOL

Anyway, well done playing the king's opening, Magnus! Someone has got to do it!

1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 d5 is called the Modern Variation, since ancient times :)
It started as a Falkbeer but transposed to the Modern Variation.

6...Be6 would have been more precise. White has nothing then. King's gambit is sound in terms of not losing, but you can hardly get any advantage if black plays correct.

@Bartleby
Thx! Indeed you're right, it was my rushed reaction, didn't count on posible tranpositions.

@Felix
With present-day human (including computer) knownledge! For how long the exchange french, the scotch, the Philidor,... had similar reputations?

I love the king's gambit! Be it tactics or strategy, they're always amazing and profound! (of course it can be said about many opening, I'm just being parcial and emotional :-) )

@ call_me_Ismael

of course no one who is going to write a book on the KG is going to claim that black has the better game.

That is not to say that is not an interesting opening.

"as I make many [mistakes] every day".

Can't argue with that bit, but the rest of what you say baffles me a bit. Steve who?

whatever, chill out dude

@Michael X Tractor: LOL agreed :)
Peter went a little too 'celeb' nowadays(?).

Shirovs evaluation =+ is not true.

I'm afraid it is true. Point to a modern GM that has played it regularly at the top level? This was Carlsen's first ever (and most likely his last ever as well). I think it just goes to show he really had too much respect for Wang's petroff to even try it.

Not only is the King's Gambit not refuted, it's probably a forced win for white! The problem is that today's top players are not willing to take risks, there is too much at stake. The scramble for ratings points, invitations, and prize funds precludes them from playing this revered opening.

Come on...there is no single opening (at least not if you look at statistics)
which is a forced win by itself (although youngsters tend to hope so), let alone the kings gambit. There is a reason other than fear of losing rating points for top players not to play it.

There is a slogan for your point of view in playwriting called 'kill your darlings'.
(which means that you cannot be expected to be an objective judge of your favourite lines).

If you read My Great Predecessors I, you can see that Kasparov is of the same opinion: in most lines, white has ampel compensation for the pawn, in his notes to the game Rosanes - Andersen for example he writes, after

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6! 6.Bc4 (6.Nxg4?! 6.d4?!) d5! 7.exd5 Bd6 8.d4

"Later the American professor and millionaire Isaac Rice devised the gambit 8.0-0 Bc5 9.Re1 and, as a patron, did everything possible to encourage the testing of his idea. Lasker and Chigorin even played an entire match (Brighton 1903) on the theme of 9...Qe7 10.c3 f3!? (10...Nh5 is even better) and black *(Chigorin) won. I think this indicates not the weakness of the world champion's play, but the defects of white's gambit." (end of quote)

Surely, Kasparov must know what he is talking about.

Proving that any opening is a forced win is impossible (at least today) because the game tree cannot be played out.

Theory however is a different story. Most lines give white the advantage in the KG. I know of no lines (other than blunders) that give black the advantage.

I still hold that if the game tree could be played out you will find that white wins by force after 2.f4. The problem with the KG though is that it is sharp as hell and one wrong move and white could be in serious trouble. This is why today's top players are not willing to play it, it's just too risky even though in theory it probably wins by force.

No one can garantee that, for now. That's an opinion, a hope, a guess.
That said, I also think KG may probably be a win, proved in the (near) future, but that can be guessed about every opening. And, as with any other opening, I wouldn't be surprised if it became proved to be just a draw, or even a loss.
Having "killed my darlings" myself, in that way, I'm free to say that, anyway, I love and root for that KG darling!
Of course it is presently NOT refuted, nor even as a winning weapon.

I second Shirov's claim. The 3..d5 lines, as played by Wang, are tame, like in the Petroff, the center is dissolved, Black equalizes at best. 3..g5 is more aggressive, objectively it's probably equal as well, but White has the more difficult game.

Yeah, of course KG is a forced win for white, as all top players know - they are just too cowardly to play it. Or something. Right. Shirov's claim that after 2... exf4 3. Nf3 g5 white has barely enough compensation to draw is... well, I probably misheared it. Right. It must have been black.

@Peter Doggers

Thanks! Seeing the videos on iPad is really nice. Hope your site will continue
this good practice!

I was struck by the sportsmanlike nature with which Ponomariov and Nisipeanu conducted themselves. Very nice!

King's gambit apears and disapears (sometimes for decades) from top chess. No definitive conclusion can be made today, also.
Whoever tries to do it (without proofs, of course), is simply being vane, whatever name he has in chess.
Before Spassky, no top GM was using it much, for instance. Why? Because it was PROVEN to be lame or bad for white? Of course not!
And that situation is not unique, in chess opening theory. KID, Grunfeld, Scotch, Ponziani, Bird, Dutch are other examples of openings being victims of prejudice and fashion.

Proofs are used in mathematics and in court. In chess opening theory, we have to make do with analyzing ideas and circumstantial evidence from practical play.

@jussu

I'll take Spassky's analysis over Shirov's any day!

Besides, who said 3.Nf3 is white's only move? The bottom line is Carlsen wouldn't have played it if he thought that the KG is refuted or bad for white. He obviously believes that the opening favors white, which it does.

Most lines give white the edge and I have yet to see just one line (other than a blunder) that gives black the advantage.

Well, one may take Kieseritzky's analysis over Spassky, and Polerio above all, but chess theory has hardly been marching backwards all these years.

I am not nearly at the level where one would refute an opening. I occasionally play KG myself; mostly opponents sort into something lame, give back the pawn and get a slightly inferior position. Those who dare play 3... g5 or 3...d6 with 4... g5 get the advantage. Certainly my mistake, but the fact is that I play other dubious gambits with greater success. I suspect that when used as a surprise whepon, black is caught pants down and dares not go into the sharp ...g5 unprepared; this way KG justifies itself well. Should a decent player adopt KG as a regular weapon, his opponents will prepare ...g5 and roast him alive.

Finally, yes, maybe 3. Bc4 is the way to go, after all.

White has many resources to combat g5. Black cannot hold the extra pawn in any variation without inflicting a hopelessly lost position on himself.

Spassky adopted the KG as a semi-regular weapon and crushed players like Bronstein, Fischer, Karpov, Seirawan, and Portisch among others. If they couldn't "roast him alive" I don't know who can!

3.Bc4 is definitely stronger than 3.Nf3, but the latter is not dubious or refuted by any means, in fact Spassky used 3.Nf3 in all of the above mentioned games.

Bronstein, Spassky, and Fischer were great and all, but this happened around the time I was born, which means hell of a time ago. People have played a lot of chess since then, and found some new things.

I am sorry guys, I don't know your elo, but 3.Bc4 is definitely weaker than Nf3 (in fact, it is almost losing for white).

@Bartleby
"Proofs are used in mathematics and in court. In chess opening theory, we have to make do with analyzing ideas and circumstantial evidence from practical play"

:-) Some fresh news, those!
Well, for some opening to be refuted (or refuted as a winning method), it would take to realy (mathematicaly) (dis)prove it.
While we're waiting for that, indeed one has to relay on things you mention, PLUS "reputation", prejudiceand fashion.
With the KG, one have an extra handicap: I think that it atracted more players while tactics prevail, even though they are difficult and "crazy". But it's strategic depth and difficulty proved to be at least as hard to grasp and far from the majority's taste, and most players indeed avoid them, the excuse being "it's too drawish, if black plays well".
But I'm convinced we are far from a last word!
I'm not one of those asserting it wins (or draws or loses) by sure, but, as for Caro-Khan, Philidor, Bird, Catalan, Petroff, Exchange French, etc., I say that the reputation of being "drawish" is just nonsense and excuses.

I forgot to mention other, more general though related, reason why (I think) many players avoid an opening like the king's gambit:
Precisely because of its "crazy" tactics and/or uncommon strategical features --- in general, at least an almost garanteed sharp play ---, it is an opening where one may have more reasons to fear an opponent's preparation, if one is known to play it regularly.
Much more than in the Ruy Lopez, for instance.
So, it usualy happens from time to time, only.
I guess someone like Carlson could play it on a regular basis, from now on, with good results, but it would impose on him a huge amount of permanent work, at least for some time, because everyone would always be preparing complicated and marginal things to throw at him, something less promissing on the strategicaly more explored and less tacticaly open Ruy.

*opened

(and again sorry for my English in general :-) )

Nearly every single line gives black an advantage... a few give white equality. NO LINE EVER in the history of the KG gives white an edge. Carlsen himself said after the interview he thanked god to have gotten a playable = position and not be lost right off the bat.

To quote the dutch Grandmaster Paul van der Sterren 'you don't play the King's Gambit to surprise yourself'.

@Castro: the Ruy Lopez is about the deepest and most versatile of openings in the strategic sense - besides what is uncommon for guys like Carlsen? There is no such thing as crazy tactics, unless you mean many unclear positions can arise. But then these guys are specialized in playing irregular positions & thinking for themselves. So that would be a reason not to avoid the unknown, of course not at the risk of a too great disadvantage.

@CAL|Daniel

You could be joking!
Of course every single player who played it relyed merely on surprise and on playing weak oponents!
And every time someone said to have a good weapon against it and proven wrong, merely had a bad day... :-)
We have to understand that (before great, mathematical proofs) "theory" and "reputation"of every oppening is made at some point and every day enhanced. They are revived, from time to time, made fashionable, and people discover that they, after all, suit some of his tastes (or the opposite process).

@Frank van T

Sure Ruy Lopez is "about the deepest and most versatile of openings in the strategic sense". Did you realy read what I wrote??
Also, it's not all about crazy tactics, unclear positions, or simple avoid (or not) the unknown. (Same question) Did you read something about "one may have more reasons to fear an opponent’s preparation, if one is known to play it regularly"?? (comparing with most other oppenings)
It is not exactely the same, right? It's NOT "Let's avoid tactics and unclear". It is "Having promising alternatives, let me avoid unnecessary completely steping on what must be a complicated, doble-edge sideline weapon that my strong opponent must have for dealing with KG. (because of less explored depth) Why risk SO MUCH?"
Anyway, I also thing those risks are not that bigger than for other openings, and that one realy should play it (if one likes). It being "an inferior opening", THAT is the thing I refuse to believe. I stress "believe", because there's nothing better a KG hater has!

@jussu

Well, maybe "hater" was an exagerated word for what I meant. But I think it was understandable.
Of course, every beliefs are respectable! :-)
As for SOME of "the leading chessplayers" having that opinion:
That's why sometimes you need daring and dogma breaking! SOME of "the leading chessplayers" have had it, and will have it. ;-)
And interesting you fing Falkbeer "safer" for black.
On these matters, any of us (including "the leading ones") could be right.

@Castro,

I don't believe (again that word!) that a single KG hater has said a word in this thread. I, for one, play it occasionally. It is simply that my experience agrees with what I hear from the leading chessplayers: if black hangs on to his pawn, then white has barely enough compensation to draw. Yet I am one of those cowards who dare not try this wisdom with black and resorts to Falkbeer :) Probably a wise choice for patzer level, anyway.