It's, of course, not dead at non-master level, but as for master or grand-master level, wikipedia says it is almost not played since humble Bobby said he refuted the King's gambit (the Fisher defense). So has theory refuted it, wikipedia, again, says no, but why then is it not played much anymore?

GM Federov has played it a lot against top level competition. I think people prefer 3. ... g5 rather than the Fischer defense.

 

Here's an example game:

 

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1261452 

What do you think of this:

 I saw this opening line in one of the games on the site. Is 4..Be7 really a great move that ruins white's plans to castle and attack black's kingside with eventual bishop sacrifice, or does white have an adequate response to it? What do you think?

 

Usually when white can just move his king to f1, then it's not a really big problem. In your above example, black made white move his king, but also allowed white to develop two pieces against only one for black (which will soon have to move again since now the N on g8 can't develop properly). Also white has better control over the center (with 7. d4 white covers e6, d5, e5 and d4) and has quicker development with 7. d4, 8. Bxf4, 9. Nc3 etc.

This position after Kf1 isn't very bad for white, Fritz give g3 instead of Kf1, I know this is a theory move, but without the d5 exd5, (which blocks the bishop to f7) and after g3 fxg3 0-0 gxh2 Kh1,but I'm not convinced as it seems to me thatblack can esaily defend himself. However, it leads to a very tactical and sharp game that could very well turn in white's favor easily and quickly if black is not extremely tight and cautious,

 

I checked the position after Kf1 with Fritz, and there is only one move (Be7) that gives a very, very small advantage to black.

 

 

There's also the pulse-quickening  6. g3?! fxg  7. 0-0 hxh2+ Kh1

 

Though this line isn't usually played in the Falkbeer and white's by down 2 pawns, white has a freer game and the possibilities are somewhat interesting.

batgirl wrote:

There's also the pulse-quickening  6. g3?! fxg  7. 0-0 hxh2+ Kh1

 

Though this line isn't usually played in the Falkbeer and white's by down 2 pawns, white has a freer game and the possibilities are somewhat interesting.

---

 I pointed out this variant, which poses a lot ofimmediate threats to black as well, but with d5 exd5 (meaning the bishop's diagonal is blocked) do you think the resulting position is still sufficient to compensate the material loss? Checked Fritz and it gave a quite good advantage to black, but I think that if black doesn't play flawlessly it's easy for white to take back the advantage, and perhaps with interests...

I don't know. That what you would trying to prove in actual play. The pawn blocks the Bishop, but it's a temporary situation since the pawn is mobile. The threat of the exposed attack on f7 seems worth something. I don't necessarily recommend this line, particularly due to the material imbalance, but on the other hand, I wouldn't hesitate from playing it myself.

Hehe I wanted to try it, but it just never happened (only the first game I used King's Gambit, but I played Kf1, didn't know of this variant before). Maybe we should test this variant together?

I only play blitz.

batgirl wrote: I only play blitz.

---

 Any particular reason?

Lots of reasons, but the one most to the point is that it's what I enjoy doing.

 

if white saw the possible check, this would stop it.( i'm not so sure on how this would affect the rest of the game though.) Instead of Bc4, white could use h4. this would enable the rook to defend h4 aswell as the knight on f3. This makes it disadvantageous for black to play Bh4 as they would lose a bishop for a pawn. then, if they moved their queen to take the capturing piece (probably knight), they would also lose their queen

Cml wrote:

Instead of Bc4, white could use h4. this would enable the rook to defend h4 aswell as the knight on f3. This makes it disadvantageous for black to play Bh4 as they would lose a bishop for a pawn. then, if they moved their queen to take the capturing piece (probably knight), they would also lose their queen

---

There are only two things wrong with this.  The position on the board is the position from which we should be springboarding forward. Otherwise I could say, if White had played 1.d4 he wouldn't be in this position at all!

 

The other thing is that, as alec94x stated so well, the King's Gambit must be player in the spirit of the gambit. That means, especially in the opening phrase, that defensive thinking must be avoided. White's already given up too much -in material and in exposing his King - to waste tempos. Developing moves must be quick and sharp, as White must, without qualification, maintain the intitiative.
White needs to find his plan along with threatening moves to implement it. 

 why not play G3 instead and if black takes the pavn on g3 you simply Castlerook .

king's gambit actualy has a very strong attacking power, but on other side, it has a weak defense :(

I've always heard that the best defense is a good offense.

white should play 6.Nxh4.

I just finished a tournament (Figueira da Foz) in Portugal and in round 6 my opponent played a king's gambit (3Bc4) against me and I had prepared this line as I had seen him play it before, it was one of my more exciting games in the event and one of my two wins with black.  The king's gambit lives! Personally, I think 3Nf3 is stronger than 3Bc4 .

The King's Gambit is still played at the highest levels, albeit rarely.

 

Here's the most recent game I've found between high rated players.