Gyula “Julius” Breyer was a Hungarian chess master, one of the best chess players of his time. In addition to winning the Hungarian Championship in 1912 and several other significant tournaments, he made his mark in chess history by setting a new record (in 1921) for blindfolded play, managing to compete against 25 opponents simultaneously. Sadly, later that same year, he passed away from tuberculosis at the young age of 28.
His variation of the King’s Gambit (a rapid development of the queen, which, contrary to the principles of the classical school, should not be exposed to premature attacks by the opponent’s minor pieces) embodies perfectly the spirit of the hypermodern chess school, of which he was one of the leading representatives.
Certainly, the situation is not always that straightforward, and Black has more favorable moves available to consider. For example:
So, what’s the verdict? Should we opt for a gambit that might lead us to a less advantageous position? Without a doubt, my answer is yes, and I have several arguments to back it up:
- Every gambit comes with inherent risks, and it would likely be unwise to employ it against a flawless chess engine. Nonetheless, when playing chess with humans, we can reasonably assume that most of them will make mistakes, particularly in the double-edged situations that often arise in the King’s Gambit.
- It is improbable that an opponent unfamiliar with the Breyer Gambit would immediately find the optimal response (3. … d5). Even if they do, we would not be in a hopeless position regardless. This is precisely what makes the King’s Gambit so appealing, even in modern times.
Let’s analyze a game from our database that demonstrates how to play if Black chooses a bad defense: