So I've done it. 20 games playing the King's Gambit in light of that little online quiz I took, and I must say: CRAP! Okay, perhaps I'm being too harsh. I have, after all, been a d4 player since I first learned about the Queen's Gambit and all the stunning and beautiful complexities it offers, so maybe the transition to the King's should take longer than a mere 20 games. I just could not get comfortable in it. The early advance of the f-pawn, coupled with the expository advance of the e-pawn just leave the king too open in for me. I found myself constantly worrying about whether or not the e1-h4 diagonal was exposed and if my opponent could fool's mate me (which did happen a few times... Not "fool's mate" in the strictest sense, but more like I felt like a fucking moron for not seeing it).
In terms of the "gambit" itself, it was never accepted, and I found myself at a loss as to how to proceed after the 2. ...d6 that inevitably followed. How can I truly call it a gambit if it were never actually accepted?
Overall consensus: I'll stick with my current repertoire: 1. d4 as white, and 1. ...c5 or 1. ...d5 to 1. e4 and 1. ...d5 or 1. ...f5 to 1. d4 as black.
Oh, flippin' sweet... I don't care about chess AT ALL, but I like having a Jon-Blog to visit! :D
ReplyDeleteJon-Blog!!! :revels:
Seriously, you should start to care about chess. I think you'd be good at it.
ReplyDeleteSee, that makes no sense to me. I feel that I will never be good at it, because I didn't start playing four million years ago like the rest of you apparently did. How am I supposed to be good at a game this complex with no 'child prodigy' early-life ingraining? Also, I'm no math whizz, sir!
ReplyDelete