A BUST TO THE KING'S GAMBIT
1
Bobby Fischer
The King's Gambit has lost popularity, but not sympathy. Analysts treat it
with kid gloves and seem reluctant to demonstrate an outright refutation.
“The Chessplayers Manual” by Gossip and Lipschütz, published in 1874,
devotes 237 pages to this gambit without arriving at a conclusion. To this
day the opening has been analyzed romantically - not scientifically.
Moderns seem to share the same unconscious attitude that caused the old-
timers to curse stubborn Steinitz: “He took the beauty out of chess”.
To the public, the player of the King's Gambit exhibits courage and
derring-do. The gambit has been making a comeback with the younger
Soviet masters, notably Spassky (who defeated Bronstein, Averbach and
myself with it). His victories rarely reflected the merits of the opening
since his opponents went wrong in the mid-game. It is often the case,
also, as with Santasiere and Bronstein, that the King's Gambit is played
with a view to a favorable endgame. Spassky told me himself the gambit
doesn't give White much, but he plays it because neither does the Ruy
Lopez nor the Giuoco Piano.
1. Published in American Chess Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Summer 1961), pp. 3-9.
The refutation of any gambit begins with
accepting it. In my opinion the King's
Gambit is busted. It loses by force.
1. e2-e4
e7-e5
2. f2-f4
e5xf4
3. g1-f3
d7-d6!
This is the key to a troublesome position, a
high-class “waiting move”. At Mar del
Plata, 1959, I played 3... g7-g5; against
Spassky, but this is inexact because it
gives White drawing chances in the
ensuing ending: e.g., 4. h2-h4 g5-g4; 5.
f3-e5 g8-f6; 6. d2-d4 d7-d6; 7. e5-d3
f6xe4; 8. c1xf4 f8-g7; and now 9. c2-c3!
(replacing Spassky's 9. b1-c3) 9. ... d8-e7,
10. d1-e2 c8-f5; 11. b1-d2 leads to an
ending where Black's extra Pawn is
neutralized by White's stranglehold on the
dark squares, especially f4.
Another good try, but also inexact, is the
Berlin Defense: 3. ... h7-h6; 4. d2-d4 g7-
g5; 5. h2-h4 f8-g7; 6. g2-g3 g5-g4; (also
playable is 6. … d6; 7. g3xf4 g5-g4) 7. f3-
h2 f4xg3; 8. h2xg4 (8. d1xg4 loses to 8.
… g3xh2; 9. g4-g7 d8xh4+; 10. e1-d1 h4-
f6) 8. … d7-d5; 9. e4-e5 c8-f5; 10 c1-f4,
where Black cannot demonstrate any
advantage.
Of course 3. … d7-d5; equalizes easily,
but that's all.
4. f1-c4
...
4. d2-d4 transposes, the only difference if
White tries to force matters after 4. … g7-
g5; 5. h2-h4 g5-g4; 6. f3-g5 (White also
gets no compensation after 6. c1xf4 g4xf3;
7. d1xf3 b8-c6; or 6. f3-g1 f8-h6) 6. …
f7-f6!; 7. g5-h3 g4xh3; 8. d1-h5+ e8-d7;
9. c1xf4 d8-e8!; 10. h5-f3 d7-d8; and
with his King and Queen reversed, Black
wins easily.
4. …
h7-h6!
This in conjunction with Black's previous
move I would like to call the Berlin
Defense Deferred. By this subtle
transposition Black knocks out the
possibility open to White in the last note
(to move 3).
5. d2-d4
g7-g5
6. 0-0
f8-g7
7. c2-c3
...
Necessary to protect the Queen's Pawn. 7.
g2-g3 is always met by … g5-g4;
7. …
b8-c6
Here there is disagreement as to Black's
best move. Puc and Rabar, Euwe, Keres,
and most analysts give the text as the main
line and mention 7. … g8-e7(!); in
passing.
I think 7. … g8-e7; is best because there is
no reason why Black should not strive to
castle King-side: e.g., 8. g2-g3 d6-d5!; 9.
e4xd5 f4xg3; 10. h2xg3 (if 10. f3-e5
g3xh2+!; 11. g1-h1 0-0; 12. d5-d6
d8xd6; wins) 10. … 0-0; 11. d1-b3 d8-
d6; 12. g1-g2 e7-f5; wins. There is little
practical experience with this sub-
variation.
8. d1-b3
...
If 8. g2-g3 g5-g4; 9. f3-h4 f4-f3; 10. b1-
d2 ... (Euwe and other analysts betray their
soft-mindedness toward this opening by
giving the inferior 10. … g7-f6(?); 11.
d2xf3 g4xf3; 12. d1xf3 … – “unclear”!!).
2
This is yet another example of
“sentimental evaluation” - after 12. … d8-
e7; followed by c8-h3 and 0-0-0 Black
wins easily.
The Black's Pawn on f3 is a bone in
White's throat so why force him to
sacrifice when he must anyway? 10. …
d8-e7; is the strongest move.
In this last variation (instead of 10. b1-d2)
White can vary with 10. d1-b3 … but then
comes Nimzovitch's beautiful winning
line: 10. … d8-e7; 11. h4-f5 c8xf5; 12.
e4xf5 (if 12. b3xb7 a8-b8; 13. b7xc6+ e7-
d7; 14. c6xd7+ f5xd7; and Black has a
winning endgame) 12. ...0-0-0; 13. c4xf7
e7-e2; 14. b3-e6+ (if 14. f1-f2 c6xd4!; 15.
f2xe2 fxe2; wins) 14. … d8-d7!; 15. f1-f2
e2-d1+; 16. f2-f1 d1-c2; 17. b1-d2 g8-f6;
(threatening c6-d8) 18. f7-g6 (if 18. e6-b3
c2xb3; 19. f7xb3 d6-d5; with a winning
endgame) 18. … d6-d5; followed by c6-
e7 with a winning game for Black.
8. …
d8-e7
9. h2-h4
g8-f6
Again theoretical disagreement. Perfectly
good is 9. … g5-g4!; 10. c1xf4 (forced,
not 10. f3-d2 c6xd4!; 11. c3xd4 g7xd4+;
etc.) 10. … g4xf3; 11. f1xf3 - given by
analysts again as “unclear” but after g8-f6
followed by 0-0, White has nothing for the
piece.
10. h4xg5
h6xg5
11. f3xg5
f6xe4
A wild position, but Black is still master.
12. c4xf7+
...
The game is rife with possibilities. If 12.
g5xe4 e7xe4; 13. f1xf4 e4-e1+; 14. f4-f1
e1-h4; 15. c4xf7+ e8-d8; 16. b3-d5
c6xe5!; 17. d4xe5 g7xe5; (threatening
Bishop on h2 and mate) 18. f1-d1 h4-g3;
wins - owing to the threat of h8-h1+.
12. …
e8-d8
13. g5xe4
...
Not 13. g5-e6+ c8xe6; 14. b3xe6 e7xe6;
15. f7xe6 c6xd4!;
13. …
e7xe4
14. c1xf4
...
14. f1xf4 also loses to 14. … e4-e1+; 15.
f4-f1 h8-h1+; 16. g1xh1 e1xf1+; 17. h1-
h2 f1xf4; etc.
14. …
c6xd4
And Black wins...
Of course, White can always play
differently, in which case he merely loses
differently. (Thank you, Weaver Adams!)
2
3
.
2. Fischer was alluding to a statement by Adams,
author of the controversial book “White to Play
and Win”, who famously claimed that White won
by force with best play, and that if Black played
differently than the lines given by Adams, he
“merely loses differently”.
3. Weaver Warren Adams (April 28, 1901 in
Dedham, Massachusetts – January 6, 1963 in
Cedar Grove, New Jersey) was an American chess
master, author and chess opening theoretician. His
greatest competitive achievement was winning the
U.S. Open Chess Championship in 1948. He
played in the U.S. Chess Championship five times.
3