Oops ... of course I meant 2.f4, sorry!
I certainly wouldn't call the Falkbeer a refutation either; it just needs very accurate play right at the start from White and Black both. And a lot of White KG players ( at my level anyway) are simply not well prepared enogh for it!
Check out Judit Polgar's use of King Gambits! She showed that even at high levels it can still be played (although maybe more for surprise factor)
"By what right does White, in an absolutely even position, such as after move one, when both sides have advanced 1. P-K4, sacrifice a pawn, whose recapture is quite uncertain, and open up his kingside to attack? And then follow up this policy by leaving the check of the black queen open? None whatever!"
Emanuel Lasker
#13 - Lasker was probably just miffed at having lost to the KG - three times! Fischer reacted similarly when he lost to Spassky; the KG seems to cause hefty emotions in the loser. Here's one of Lasker's games:
en.lichess.org/vJsj3WKMYeah, I hate losing against this opening, too! :p
Anyway, I do think that it's quite a bad idea to make the King's Gambit your main weapon with white.
As with every offbeat opening, there may be reasons to play it occasionally, such as getting your opponent out of prep, or simply getting a fun game.
But in a serious game, against an equally strong opponent, I don't see the point in taking so many risks with 2. f4?! when I could just play the natural and objectively better 2. Nf3 instead.
I also think that playing 2. Nf3 as your main move is in a way "healthier" for your chess development. If you play 2. f4?! too often, you just get too many chaotic positions where it's more about playing for traps than about playing objectively sound moves.
I disagree with Dr_King_Schultz.
IMHO King's Gambit is a good main weapon with white, not something offbeat.
2 f4 involves no real risk for white and 2 Nf3 is not more natural or objectively better than 2 f4
I also think 2 f4 is healthier for your chess development than 2 Nf3
King's gambit isn't about traps, it is about the center, about strategy and it is an objectively sound move
It does however make your mistakes more clear than say in the Ruy Lopez aka Spanish Opening
That is an advantage for your development, not a disadvantage, as you can't learn from mistakes that neither you nor your opponent even notice
KG, I think, improves both strategy and tactics. It is important to have a clear plan backed up by tactical soundness. Nf3 is objectively better, but the gambit is far more exciting and leads to better chess development.
Well, I like to develop my pieces and castle, so I play 2. Nf3. :D
(And then I'll play the Ruy Lopez mainlines and often get the center with c3-d4 anyway...)
Whenever I try the King's Gambit, I feel like I have to hope for my opponent to get greedy and to try to hang on to the pawn forever. If black doesn't care too much about the extra pawn and instead goes for a quick d5, my e pawn will get exchanged, so my nice center will be gone and I feel like black has equalized.
As for the type of mistakes you can typically make in these openings:
I think that most mistakes you can make in a King's Gambit are of tactical nature whereas in the Ruy Lopez, you can make both tactical and strategical mistakes. Now of course those strategical mistakes are usually not that easy to figure out at first, but once you do, you can actually learn a lot from them. By playing "tactical" openings exclusively, you miss out this chance entirely.
But ok, maybe I just don't understand the King's Gambit well enough... :D
Short vs. Luke McShane, KG, 1:0: "There are so many refutations of the King's Gambit and Luke knows them all. But he couldn't decide which one to choose and so he lost on time!"
Kramnik: "I would like to play the KG but I still haven't found a way to equalize with white."
By the way, 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.ed5 ef4 is probably as interesting as French exchange...
Tata Steel 2017
Adhiban, B.
½-½
So, W.
White got a clear advantage against his higher rated opponent, but then failed to convert.
