So I was reading the I hate Italians forum(thats not what its called) and read the suggestion about the goring gambit... it looks solid and fun to play with book moves all the way to the 13th move... aside from this I have a couple of questions

1. what are whites goals if the no exchanges are made?

2. what kind of game does it lead to if no pieces are exchanged?

3. what can black do to equalize?

4. what can we expect with Goring's variation of 5.bc4

5. and finally what about black 4...bc5

Exchanges are good if it leads to control over the middle game

ummm... you didnt answer any of my questions

after 5...Bc5 I would play 6.Bc4

I would also play 5.Bc4 after 4...Bc5

pleasant... really

Aw, its nice to feel appreciated ... you did want Those questions answered, right?  :))

whyd you erase the old one

1.Well the reason or reasons for the gambit are ofcourse that white gets more central control and development but remember development is only a short term advantage so you will need to use it properly to get any compensation for the pawn.

Your plans (admitting that I am no expert in the goring gambit) is first of all to restrict his central development because the more time it takes him to develope the better your compensation should logically be. Next as in most gambits is to either gain the material back with interest (hopefully) or mate.

Notes: the d5 square is looking pretty tasty so don't be afraid to gobble it with a knight using an extra tempo.

The c-pawn is gone so your queen has a little extra leash which is always useful.

Don't get too hung up attacking the f7 pawn because often your pieces will end up misplaced seeing how easy it is to defend it here.

Oh and I heard some thing about a g4 thrust don't quote me here cos' I might be getting muddled up but it's always an idea to look into.

2. An open one.

3. In all the gambits I play I considermyself being worse if I don't do anything about it! but I would reccomend looking at MCO or an opening reference for more info on equality since hundreds of GMs are a much more realiable source then I!

4.

Here is one violent example of a Goring 2 min game where BL tries to hold the pawn with ...c5. One of the reasons for using Frank Marshall's move order 2.d4 to transpose to the Goring, or "semi-Danish" as Alekhine called it, is to permit BL this error if he wishes to play with a gaping hole on d5. Also this move order allows transposition to Scotch Gambit if preferred, and avoids the 4...d5 decline line of the common move order (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 ed4 4.c3 d5 ) since 3...d5 favors WT in the Marshall line.  

Bumpity bump.

I am not sure of the original question. The goal of the Gambit is to get quick development and an open position for White. Normal development by Bc4 and 0-0 is usually the correct plan.

There are ways to decline the gambit with an early ...d5 which leads to an equal game. Also the Goring Gambit does not lead to a winning line. If Black develops and plays carefully he also can get a good game. The goal is for White to understand the types of positions and piece placement and get a good game.

Here is another Goring where BL tried to hold the pawn. He was a gracious opponent and good player, and won our first game of a different opening. But that goes to show that the Goring is just very difficult to meet, even for good players who are not completely versed in it; especially if WT gets a lead in development & is not afraid to sac a piece if needed to pursue the attack. He might have tried to capture the pawn with dxe5 but if Nxe5 QxNe5 then the King chase is on, and he will have no safe castle for shelter.

Have you tried playing some Goring Gambit(s) yet? It would be good to see your game(s). 

This is the most common trap ...Bxf3 looks so natural. But gets mated this way. This particular very short 'trap' will happen at least several times in a hundred blitz Gorings. BTW for anyone into terminology, these moves that skip an immediate recapture, such as gxf3 would be, are called"zwishenzugs" aka 'in-between moves'.