The King's Gambit hasn't been solved nor is it likely to be solved any time soon. That article was one of Chessbase's annual April Fools posts. https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-chebase-april-fools-revisi...

I've been under the impression for years that the King's Gambit, despite it being the best variation/opening of all (IMO), was obsolete at the highest levels. A chess master/instructor once assured me of this, despite it being his favorite too. He referred to it as "romantic" and said it was almost never played at GM level.

It is rather rare at high levels because someone who knows the book lines will equalize fairly easily as black. That said, it isn't losing for white, nor is it particularly easy to play as black if you've never studied it in depth.

reminds me of https://www.chess.com/blog/eXecute/a-capablanca-story

That's an April Fool's Day prank. The King's Gambit has not been solved.

That article is an April Fool's joke: https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-chebase-april-fool-s-prank

> Actually, the King's Gambit has been (essentially) solved: https://en.chessbase.com/post/rajlich-busting-the-king-s-gam....

> There is only one move that doesn't lose by force after 2. ... exf4, and that is the strange-looking 3. Be2. Does that mean this opening is a "mistake"? Well, maybe not, obviously a human wouldn't know the perfect lines, but personally I wouldn't play it :)

It was an April Fools Prank. Apparently a good one.

What gives it away as a prank? I surely couldn't tell. Anything more than the reference to March 31?

> If at least two masters have played a move in tournament situation, then the move must be playable! So that's how it works now.

Considering how much Stockfish is stronger than those masters, those moves could be really wrong despite being playable in human vs human games.

http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/404/cgi/compare_engines...

Hoowever we don't know the estimated ELO of Stockfish as used by Lichess.

No, there are positions where computers are known to make the wrong decisions. Computers use opening books instead of evaluating the moves themselves because they don't evaluate openings well.