Ronaldinho why not move with the variation I explained then develop the bishop it seems to wield more control over the kingside that way, interesting variation though, I tried it out on a computer analyzing program and it seems to draw useful results thanks for your comment. Fromper in the variation which I explained the knight being used to block the queen check will be exchanged for a bishop thanks for your comment though and I hope you find this thread useful. Skwerly usefu insight however it is not impossible for a GM to make a mistake :]. Octal thanks for drawing interest to the bishop's gambit I plan to analyze it to see which results it can produce. Lastly thanks for your comment Perseus but you have forgotten that white has lost most of the pawns on the kingside making it very weak and vulnerable, also white will be down a castle position as well as the two pawns which you explained, I hope you can continue to contribute your knowledge of the King's Gambit though I have found it very useful other than what I have commented in this post. Thanks Everyone

Well, because strong players won't respond to Qh4+ with g3. They'll play Kf1, and then gain time on your (now misplaced) queen later. f1 turns out to be a pretty reasonable home for the K in those lines (which seems counterintuitive, I know, but practically it works out.)

It's be easier to comment on what you're suggesting, however, if you gave us a specific move order. There are a lot of move-order issues in the KG, and I simply don't understand exactly how this counterattack you're suggesting is supposed to work.

Exactly, give us moves to go with your ideas and we'll put them both under a microscope

If I can understand this correctly, you are saying that if white plays 3. Nf3, black should play ...Bg4, ...Bxf3, ...Qh4+? The most direct way would be by: 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. d4 Bg4 5. Bxf4 Bxf3 6. Qxf3 Qh4+ 7. Bg3 and Black's "counter-attack" consisted of giving up the bishop pair, developing the queen too early, falling behind in development, having a weaker central position, while returning the gambit pawn. Blacks plan was a big success...

I know it sounds that way octal but if you look at whites position after the queen check it is just as bad if not worse than black having many undeveloped pieces and weak kingside as it's pieces are slowly obliterated with most of it's pieces defending others. By the way I'd like to apologize to all the chess players on this thread I can see how I can be difficult to follow so to make discussions about the king's gambit easier I have started to make youtube videos, simply viewing the video titled King's gambit will be able to show you where i'm coming from: YouTube - King's Gambit

How much did you pay white so he would play those moves?

Perseus:
Just out of curiosity, what line did you play after 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5?

4. h4 the Kieseritzky Attack, just the best way to go about the main line of the KG.

Though I dabbled with 4. d4 (Rosentreter Gambit) and 4. Bc4 g4 5. 0-0 gxf3 6. Qxf3 (Muzio Gambit). Neither is very sound, but they pack a punch in blitz.

Black’s 4…Bg4 is not “bad” in the sense that it’s immediately refuted but other moves offer better chances. Anyway as to 4…Bg4 my db search did not show anybody rated over 2200 using this move. Here are the typical replies:

Grigorian,Meri - Guindy,Esmat
Hammershoj (Women) 14.02.2000
1.f4 e5 2.e4 exf4 3.Nf3 d5 4.exd5 Bg4 5.Bb5+ c6 6.dxc6 Nxc6 7.Bxc6+ bxc6 8.0–0

Andersson,Goran - Larsson Haeller,Sara
SWE-ch op Gotland (2), 1997
1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 exf4 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Bb5+ c6 6.dxc6 bxc6 7.Qe2+ Qe7 8.Qxe7+ Bxe7 9.Ba4 Bxf3 10.gxf3 Bh4+ 11.Ke2

Gonzalez,Jorge - Pisani,Carlos
corr, 1975
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d5 4.exd5 Bg4 5.Bb5+ c6 6.dxc6 bxc6 7.Bc4 Nf6 8.Bxf7+ Kxf7 9.Ne5+ Kg8 10.Nxg4 Qe7+ 11.Kf1 Nbd7 12.Nxf6+ Qxf6 13.d4

Hoholis,Harry - Stead,Kerry
Australian op Suncoast (3), 04.01.1999
1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 exf4 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Bb5+ Nd7 6.0–0 Bd6 7.d4 a6 8.Bxd7+ Qxd7 9.c4 c5

Also after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d5 4.exd5 Bg4 I don’t see anything wrong with 5.h3 by White. If 5…Bxf3 6.Qxf3 Qh4+ when either 7.Qf2 or 7.Kf1 look quite reasonable

In the final analysis I think …Qh4+ by Black is rarely satisfactory if White can reply with Kf1. The reason being the early Q sortie loses time and the lone Q can’t do much damage by itself. Sooner or later it will be driven back and Black will find his lack of development more of a liability than White’s somewhat exposed K. Like 4…Bg4, a move like …Qh4+ may not have a direct refutation; it’s just not the best. Believe me if 4…Bg4 had any merit there would be some games where players stronger than 2200 played it. It will only work well if White mishandles the position.

I agree with that.

The same is true of lines with Bh4+ in the King's Gambit. The f1-square is quite reasonable for the king there as well.

The kings Gambit is beyond doubt my favourite gambit - And Nf3 is definately the way to go - approximately 80% of my Kings Gambit games had Nf3 as the 3rd move (and of those I may have won half - but don't quote me on that!)

One of the juiciest and wildest variations is the three pawns attack- the main line goes 1. e4 e5 2. f4 e5xf4 3. Nf3 Be7 4. Bc4 Bh4+ 5. g3! f4xg3
6. 0-0! g3xh2+ 7. Kh1!



After the crazy sacrifice of 3 pawns white get a massive attack that is hard for black to weather!
The first time I came across this opening my oppnent hammered me repeatedly every time I persistently played 4. Bh4+. As a result I stopped playing Bh4 on move 4 altogether and adopted the 3 pawns attack into my arsenal -with excellent results I may add!