Are there any? I can't seem to find one.

Are you a liar or just lazy? Go to amazon and search it, see how many come up =_=

Don't look for any. White doesn't get much for the pawn sac.

Joe Gallagher's book on it is good. So is Neil Mcdonald's.

Bobby F

Tell that to Spassky.

I recommend the following books:

Winning with the King's Gambit by Joe Gallagher

The King's Gambit for the Creative Aggressor by Thomas Johansson

The Fascinating King's Gambit also by Thomas Johansson

I've heard good things about the Korchnoi and Zak book -- not sure about the title -- but I've yet to get my hands on a copy.

If you're looking for a good buzz kill there's also 'The King's Gambit: A Modern View of a Swashbuckling Opening' by Neil McDonald.  Opening books are best when written by an enthusiast -- a labor of love if you will.  In this case, McDonald clearly doesn't believe in the gambit and his pessimism permeates (and taints) the entire book.  Hence the buzz kill.

The gambit is not really sound, but if black doesn't watch his back white will destroy him. Then again, a one of the reasons why I hate the King's gambit is because I am more of a positional player than tactical, so gambits like the Benko Gambit appeal to me more.

Write one.

One was started a few years ago, but both GM Shaw and Pinski backed off the efforts they were making for Quality Chess (publisher).

The main reason is that it is very hard (impossible) to find lines that give white equality.  Despite this, there is a new book covering the even more dubious BDG on the horizon by the author of 1. ....Nc6!

Fortunately, the "soundness" of an opening often has little impact on the result of an OTB game.  I'm pretty sure Nakamura would agree considering his recent Two Knights adventure.

Gonnosuke, that's the first time I've read a post of yours which tacitally admits, even in the slightest, that the KG is lacking in soundness.

I totally agree with your statement, btw.

Ozzy, if the gambit is unsound then how did so many great players have success with it?

That's true. Many openings are called unsound by lots of people, but they are played anyway until some computer or GM proves it.

@RainbowRising That's easy. Strong computer programs, databases, and the internet are collectively a catalyst for opening theory.

Santasier wrote one. I have a copy. It's mostly a games collection with his outdated analysis, some modern analysis, and a little story accompanying each game.

I have a book called "Developments in the King's Gambit: 1980-1988".

Ever since I saw Korchnoi on YouTube yelling at Sophia Polgar after losing a blitz game, the old man gives me the heebie jeebies. I recall his words vividly "That is the first and the last time you will ever beat me IN YOUR LIFE!!! ...IN YOUR LIFE!!!" and then he bolted, presumably to ensure the fulfillment of the prophesy.

I think the argument largely hinges on the definition of "sound".  How one distinguishes between "sound" and "unsound" has a lot to do with expectations and how you view the value of different results.  If you're inclined to view a draw as a bad result when playing white then I think the King's Gambit is certainly not sound.  If a draw is an acceptable result when playing white then the gambit is absolutely sound at all levels of play.  

In very practical terms, for attack-minded players rated below 2200 the King's Gambit is better than sound -- it's a lethal weapon.

But this is at the top level right?

Well, we are not playing otb here now are we?

Do you play any more otb?  eh?

Yes - but opening theory is nearly always created at the top level.