OFTEN, THOUGH THE OPENING IS AGGRESSION,I reckon there appeared to be

the aderse position and reverse position on the chess board?

What about you guys opinion,  is there no perfect formulas for opening like Once great player mentioned alike of BOBBY FISHER? PLEASE COMMENT,THANKS!

I really like the king's gambit. It is a strong opening with a good success rate for white.

I played it for little while and I found that if black knew exactly what to do I would always be fighting for equality as white. The KG is almost never played at high levels either so I think it's not very good.

Kings Gambit is great game but tough going against strong players

The King's gambit, unlike the oftenly played Queen's gambit, is that it exposes the White King to numerous threats for the advantage of an aggresive initiative at the start of the game (opening the king's bishop file, thereby attacking the weak f7 square early in the game with sacrificial attacking options).  However, with proper handling at the other side of the board, black could easily equalize or even launch a counter-attack.

KG is considered to be one of the most-studied openings, so many high-level players will know it inside and out, and they stay away from it because of that.  But at lower levels, it's perfectly acceptable to play.

I'm always playing it in fast games, because it makes for an exciting and sharp tactical game. On the other hand, black can push white into cramped positions with Be7 - Bh4+; or 1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 e4.

So you all don't consider Fischer's Defense to be a bust?

White doesn't have sufficient advantage in this opening. I don't play it. As black I often play 1. e4 e5 and if 2. f4 then 2... d5 3. ed c6 - Nimzovich variation.

If you want play such positions (like KG) you also should look at Vienna Opening. It's like a KG but more "technical".

What does it mean "inferior"?

"Today, two lines, 1.e4 e5, 2.f4 ef, 3.Nf3 g5 (Philidor) and 3... d6 (Fischer) compete as considered  best for black. The analysis and evaluations in both variants are still far from being complete."

If you can play such chess you may play this. But a lot of people play simply 1.e4 e5, 2.f4 ef, 3.Nf3 d5 and also equalize.

The Kings gambit is okay, but as most people know the Queens gambit is better.

People say it is bad because of this reason, and others say good because of that reason.  There is nothing wrong with equality either!  Here's a good point.  How many openings are played that are equal, yet fully playable?  The Slow Italian is a great example.  The point is, play what you are comfortable with, or what you enjoy.  There are still GM's playing this opening - it is fully playable.  For that matter, there are GM's playing many openings. 

As far as the Fischer defense is concerned, I didn't do well when I tried it before.  Now I have played the ...g5-...g4-...Bg7 variation before with a good game.  I sacked a rook for three passed pawns on the kingside and queened.  A very energetic opening from both sides. 

I have a book at the house by Korchnoi on the King's Gambit, and he assesses it as definetely playable for White. 

I agree with mandelshtam here.  The Classical Main Line and the Fischer Defense are much better than the Abbazia.  I believe that White can retain an initiative in the Classical Main Line.  The Fischer leads to unclear and complex positions.  I would probably prefer the Fischer variation.  But that is just taste.

It's a good way for white to burn out fast.

Supernova style.

But playing both sides of it is more fun than those stuck in the mud games.

I like it, because most of the time, my opponents don't know how to play against it.  So I often get a superior game with my pieces well developed, and I usually get my pawn back quickly.  It is great for speed chess too.

It is also good for players who are learning the game.  It is a great opening for teaching tactics and piece development.

I usually don't play it against superior opponents with a long time control, though, because I'm not sure how sound it is, and pawn-down middlegames against better opponents are not my cup of tea.

 I agreed, speed wise is Ok, too risky to play with good player, that is it, thanks

I like the Kings Gambit because many people haven't a clue what they're doing. If you know what you are dong, it is useful in speed chess.

I have always liked the KG. I am afraid I don't have the skill or style (or something) for it, heh. Years ago when I played OTB in the USCF a few of the players including the top rated master in the club (who was maybe 12?) transposed to the KG (by the vienna game?). His move order was simply 1 e4 e5 2 nc3 ... and 3 f4. Most people knew it but the move order was for some surprise, and although he knew the lines very well, lesser players might get confused. As stated it could be an aggressive opening, but also can end up being a defensive one as well. By defensive I mean getting some positional advantages and having to defend them. When successful, like any good opening, it could show that it was also an opening about endgames. Maybe if I started playing earlier I could be the type of player to use the KG. It is an exciting opening that I still enjoy observing. ... For now I play the QG which seems to be more my style.

Use it against weaker players.

Nope, sorry.  I use it against strong players and they usually bite the dust, especially in the Muzio Gambit.