i love the king's gambit (i love more the latvian gambit) but i must admit that the chinese fuseki is more flexible than the one minded king's gambit.

yes, the chinese fuseki can beat the hell out of the king's gambit.

sorry, chessplayers…one more reason to play GO.

Although it is Go's nature to be more flexible than Chess, I tend to disagree that the Chinese Fuseki is RELATIVELY more flexible than King's Gambit. When I say relatively, I mean compared to other GO openings, it's not more flexible than King's Gambit is when compared to other CHESS openings. Although I can't claim to be much of a strong chessplayer, I do know enough about Go to say that moyo-oriented fuseki are not made to be especially flexible. With black's first three moves on the same side of the board, it's pretty obvious what his strategy is– use the benefit of the first move to establish a moyo that white simply must invade, then use white's invasion as a target to build up thickness to attack the other side of the board. Although there's obviously many variations this is the general idea. Compare this to a more open-minded opening (such as my personal favorite 4-4, 10-10, 16-16) and you'll see that it's a very STRONG fuseki, but not because of flexibility.

My two cents :)

Hm, nu prea inteleg cum poate fi comparata flexibilitatea deschiderilor (fuseki-urilor). As zice ca mintea jucatorului trebuie sa fie flexibila, nu deschiderea :-)

adrian, i disagree.

i think the chinese is very flexible because of what you said (outside influence and moyo) but it can and very easy turn into a territorial structure.

i think that is why the chinese is very popular within the amateur players.

but the king's gambit is strictly an open game and playin against this kind of game can turn into a disaster…especially for black.

Now see this is where you are so wrong. I have been playing the king's gambit all my life, both with the white pieces and occassionally with the black pieces. I can tell you if one single chess sacrifice has a strategical plan behind it, it will definitely be the king's gambit.

Certainly, the king's gambit can lead to very tactical play, but even more so, play leads to strategical positions.

I cannot commentate on a comparison, but any comparison you try to make seems just utterly silly to me, and judging one game better over the other insane.

Chess is such a deep game that even the best grandmasters feel like floating on a raft in the big ocean. You can study the game for years, and still don't understand it.

liso asked me to translate what Crelo said about chinese fuseki :)

“Hm, nu prea inteleg cum poate fi comparata flexibilitatea deschiderilor (fuseki-urilor). As zice ca mintea jucatorului trebuie sa fie flexibila, nu deschiderea :-) "

He said that he can't understand how someone could compare the flexibility of josekis (fusekis). He also said (and I agree with him) that the mind of the Go player should be flexible, not the josekis played by him :-)

mighty, i too have been playin chess all my life (sorry for me it was not GO) and playin a positional game with the king's gambit is wrong.

im not sayin it cant be done…but is against the kings nature. is like playin a sanrensei and then startin to play very territorial.

or in chess, playin the pirc and then playin it like an open game.

it can be done…but is stupid.

and now that i mention stupid…thanks for all of you participating in this stupid topic.

I don't think so, pitirre. King's gambit really has some strategical ideas - for sacrificed pawn White gains both the advantage in centre and the possibility of opening the f-column - both are some longer-time strategical advances. Compare it with e.g. Norwegian gambit (1.e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 etc.) where the main idea of sacrifice is only gain of time. Of course, it doesn't exclude the fact that many games played with King's gambit lead to tactical play.

c, like i said; playin strategically in the kings can be done (considering chess's humble strategy impact on the game) but the NATURE of the opening is not a positional one.

can chinese fuseki beat a potato?

pitirre,

there were some arguments, that playing KG has a strong positional impact. Clearly, it teaches to care for dynamical aspects. But this is no contradiction. Talking about the spirit of an opening is often a lack of flexibility. My chess level in club games was in Elo about 2000+ and I played King Pawn openings, because they prevent Black more probably from attacking the king side than the Queen Pawn or other closed games, if You has an adaequate repertoire for this purpose. On my level this worked. The strongest part of my play were the finals. So Crelo's comment works here too - it depends on the flexibility of the players mind.

gregorio, i dont know what kind of attachment u got with a potato…but is sick!!!

mamao!!

carmen, i understand, and i said it, one can do “whatever” he/she wants with a opening…but many openings have a nature About them.

is like playng the main line of the semi-slav/botvinnik attack and then continue to play at the king side.

yes, one can do it…but is not the nature of the system.

pittire,

what do You mean? - the Botwinnik Variation is to attack the center and the king side AFAIK. It's a positional sacrifice. How do You see this?

no, i dont see it.

my point is sarcastic.

the botvinnik attack/main line put emphasis on the queen side (black's point of view) and it will be stupid to play at the king side. yes, u can play there if u want to…but is not the nature of the system.

that is my point.

potatoes can play an open minded aperture in chess, but it's not its NATURE.

Most potatoes already have eyes, so they should do well at Go.

Well prepared is any potato superior to any game.

“tostones” is better than anything…and with “carne frita”…

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm