wrote in message
...
On Mar 22, 8:13 pm, help bot wrote:
On Mar 22, 7:45 pm, Albert wrote:

In Reuben Fine's 'The Ideas Behind Chess Openings' page 7 he wrote:

'OPENINGS WITH 1 P-K4, P-K4

Both White's and Black's initial moves are perfectly natural and
normal: both assist development and affect vital central squares.
As long as Black can retain symmetry, White can lay no claim to an
advantage. Consequently the task is to compel the defender to give up
his strong center positions, in other words to abandon his P at K4.
White can achieve this aim only by playing P-Q4.'

Why?

GM Fine was mistaken, for not only did he
err in claiming White has no advantage in
having /the first move/, but he seems to have
forgotten all about p-f4-- an alternative way to
attack e5 pawn.

Our Greg returns to his usual modus operandi, which involves
ignorance of the book in question, and disconnecting mouth from brain.
Actually Fine devoted several pages to the King's Gambit in that book.
If Greg had troubled to read pages 58-61 of Idea's Behind the Chess
Openings he would have seen that Fine hardly forgot about "p-
f4" [sic].

**Yes. In fact the King's Gambit is a very powerful opening against all
comers* - and the particular point, to quote Thomas Johansson in his "The
King's Gambit for the Creative Aggressor!"

Das Konigsgambit fur den erfindungsreichen angriffsspieler! [ROFL]

is that after
1. e4 e5
2. f4 d6
the author says "this 'Philidor approach' gives white a small advantage,
almost instantly, in control of the centre and easy development." and he
says this on the first page of chapter 1.

**people who disagree should tell Boris Spassky their fascinating opinions.
It certainly served him against 2500-2600 players, which is probably no
inhibition to anyone reading in this newsgroup.

Phil Innes

Here, he also seems to reject so-called
hyper-modern strategy altogether, in favor of
classical.