Annotated chess game

That is *not* the Ruy Lopez. The Ruy Lopez is e2-e4 e7-e5 Ng1-f3 Nb8-c6 Bf1-b5. This is the King's pawn game.

It is more than likely that Black was anticipating playing the Ruy Lopez. King's Gambits don't come by so often these days...

But Italian does, and so does the Petrov defense and many more, which are all still possible from this position. In fact its white's who has that choice, not black.

The King pawn game is not weak. It is the most common move for beginners and extremely high players often play it too.

I do admire the annotator's enthusiasm for the King's Gambit. Time was I felt the same way. Not so much, these days!

A tried an true Kings gambit against a weak Ruy Lopez? Sorry to ramble, but Ruy Lopez is one of the most played openings at the highest levels, so its silly to call it weak. As for the Kings gambit, many black players dont know how to counter it, which can make it very effective.

2...d5 is the stongest counter. But I have a liking for 2...,Qh4+?!; although has backfired on me several times.

Sometimes called the King's Knight's Gambit. Other possibilities are: 3.Bc4 (Bishop's Gambit); 3.Be2 (Lesser Bishop's Gambit); 3.Nc3 (Keres Gambit); 3.Qf3 (Breyer Gambit. If you think I'm making this up, I've seen a game in which J.R. Capablanca played this as White); 3.Kf2 (King's Own Gambit, a.k.a. the Tumbleweed).

This move was Bobby Fischer's recipe - his 'refutation' of the Gambit.

Slightly better is actually 4. d4. I think d4 is a marginally more important move to get in in the KG, especially when g5 hasn't been played, as it immediately starts threats to take back the pawn on f4. If white can get that pawn back, he's usually grand.

But taking the black bishop would undouble pawns and bring a side pawn into the center countering the advantage white gains in the King's gambit by diverting a central pawn to the side.

Main line is either BxB (the king will get a bit draughty, which is worth undoubling the pawns) or Qe2. Backing away isn't really recommended in the King's Gambit.

Not so sure, doesn't do much...

I would probably have played Bc4-b3 so that if the black bishop decided to trade taking with a pawn would give you rook a half open file. But it would have kept the bishop on that diagonal. It would have been better than retreating it and moving it to d5 and was traded off would result in doubled pawns. Bc4-b5+ is useless and would just get chased away. On d3 it would block in the d pawn and not have much scope. I suppose it wouldn't be bad to take the black bishop but that would fix blacks pawn structure.

This retreat has all the hallmarks of not having decided before playing the bishop to c4 what he was going to do if Black challenged him on the f7 (a2-g8) diagonal.

black have a good move Bh4+ at this position, thats why white must play 0-0 or h4.

0-0 is a very important move in the King's Gambit usually. It brings the rook to the half-open f-file, and is absolutely an attacking move.

Usually played on the third move.

And much improved here!

What's wrong with d4?

Nd4 instead, threatening NxB, leaving the black king a bit open.

g4 looks better. Black should attack, not defend.

7...g4 has its p[oints, and Black could open up the g-file by following up immediately with 8...f3. But this advance will allow Black to develop his King's Knight without worrying about Nxg5.

Blocking his own pawn storm.

Meh, this is ok. Quiet, but black has played quietly too, so it's ok. I think white needs a rook on d1 and then should aim for an e5 push.

I might have tried 10.h3, here, to induce 10.(h3) Bxf3 11.Bxf3 ... with the threat of 12.e5, attacking the Knight and unmasking an attack against b7. The position obtained would also tend to hold back Black's pawn storm for the time being as well.

Its an equal game here