I recently found out that after the gambit pawn in the king's gambit is taken and your opponent either developes their knight or bishop, (your move)queen to h5 (after pinning the knight with your light squared bishop if they have developed it) and after they play pawn to g3 u take with your gambit pawn (a second time) and threaten either a loss of rook, promotion (due to the discovered check you have if your opponent doesn't take your pawn) and even checkmate within the next 10 movements in some variations. What still confuses me though is why masters and gms still use this opening, are there any lines in which white gains it's positional advantage or is the opening simply unreliable?

You mean 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Qh4+ 4. g3 fxg3?

I haven't studied this gambit, so I don't know how the Bc4 variation works, but it is a well known variation that occasionally still gets used at the grandmaster level.

More common is 3. Nf3, though, preventing the queen check.

--Fromper

I've played the King's Gambit a few times (mostly in blitz), and I have preferred the Bishop's Gambit over 3. Nf3. Even though the queen check looks "scary", it's a bad move that wastes time. Even if this is true, this is the most common move in practical play, trying to "refute" how white has left that diagonal open.

After 3. ... Qh4+?!, White should not play 4. g3?, because after 4. ... fxg3 White has problems, but 4. Kf1! Then 4. ... d5! (returning the pawn to open lines; the tempting 4. ... Bc5? (threating ...Qf7#) is refuted by 5. d4!) 5. Bxd5 Bd6 6. Nc3 is about equal. White will play a later Nf3, gaining time attacking the queen, and castle by hand, or sometimes play Kg1, followed by g3, and meting ...fxg3 by hxg3, opening the h-file for attack.

I am very fond of the Bishop's gambit, and if I ever get into trouble with my current opening repertoire, I would switch to it.

I loved playing the King's Gambit.. Played more games with it than I can remember. 3. Nf3 is the best way to go, 3. Bc4 is okay, but not better. In general, Nf3 is just far more dangerous for black.

It's still a sharp opening. Just because the majority of GM's have refuted it and know the lines as well as they know their names does not make it unsound... Not at the level most of us are at .

Exactly.

Why is Nf3 a better move?

That knight often travels to e5 or g5, it temporarily 'fixes' white's position as well as performing the usual duties of preventing that check (not that big a deal, but black having the check in reserve helps him) and supporting d4. In lines with an early Bc5 (not necessarily the Declined) Bxf1 actually threatens to inconvenience white. Bc4 is more of a positional move than Nf3, maybe a little less tested in practice. There is no telling where that bishop should be at move 3, Bc4 commits it blindly, wheareas that knight must go to f3 really. There are other things I could draw in, as well as the pros of Bc4, but the bottom line is that Nf3 is a more relevant move than Bc4 in the position; it helps that it can lead to far more insane complication.

Oh well... we're technically talking like .2 pawn overall I'd guess. Nothing that would matter that much in an amateur game, which is why the attacking potential of Nf3 is the key factor why it's better than Bc4 in my opinion...

It's telling that really the best move for black after 3.Bc4 is generally NOT Qh4+.

Just food for thought.

But anyone who plays this as white still has to know how to handle it. Personally, I find this conversation interesting. With all the gambits I've played, I've never tried the KG, so I'm learning a lot from this thread.

--Fromper