Earlier today somebody posted a topic asking if the King's Gambit Bishop's Opening has been refuted, and my conclusion is no. Not even by modern standards. Which compelled me to post a game between Nigel Short and Garry Kasparov proving my point. In this game Kasparov was defeated in 15 moves. Probably the quickest he's ever been beaten. I can't recall a quicker game. Anyways, here goes!

I don't know that it's evidence of anything.

I agree with you that the Bishop's gambit certainly isn't refuted.

But Kasparov here was playing such a ridiculous line that I have to assume it was an exhibition or a blitz game or something.

It was a thematic game meaning that it pertained only to the King's Gambit, that the 1st 4 moves were already decided. I can't think of better proof than witnessing the best player in the world being defeated by this line.

I disagree the line isn't thar ridiculous. I agree there were a couple of inacurracies but no obvious blunders which happened after the opening. That's actually funny. A 1500 calling Kasparov's play ridiculous.

There where more than 4 moves, in fact, the game started after move b5.

The funny thing is that Kasparov himself claimed in one of his openings book (I think he wrote it with Raymond keene?) that 5...b5 only leeds to a minor advantage for white. A move that he during the game protested loudly, I think this says something about how much work these super GM's put in the books on their own, atleast sometimes.

I respectfully ask you not to bring Haywood into my thread. He could choke on that hotdog as far as I care.

Personally I don't see the point of b5 other than attacking chances w/ the black queen. Again 1 pawn means very little when both kings are exposed like that. Very likely it's going to be a short game.

As detailed, the play in the game was part of a thematic.  Kasparov, whether he defended it or not, would never play ...b5 in that position, with several better moves on the board.  Using any of them, he'd typically crush Short like a bug.

This is what I mean by "ridiculous."  And of course, I'm correct.  The play up through that point was, indeed, ridiculous.  There's a reason why my GM database shows exactly one game in this line, when that move is available to everybody who plays.  Because it's a sub-optimal move.

I wouldn't argue Kasparov wasn't playing moves that were intentionally ridiculous.  (Which, again, he was because of the whole thematic thing.)  But ridiculous all the same.

the playof the game was thematic upto b5. So your saying b5 was the losing move,sorry butyou're wrong.Helost due to the inaccuracies after move 5 such as Nxe4. He lost on his own accord.

Anyway the only point I was trying to make was that the bishop's gambit is comepletely sound not whether or not Kasparov would of won because of this and that. You also don't know that short would of been crushed like a bug. he did win 1 out of 4 games against kasparov

As to your initial and essential point I am in complete agreement that the Bs gambit is sound.  I play the Black side of the KGA quite often and am always more relaxed when I see 3. Nf3 instead of 3. Bc4.

Not ridicolous at all, b5 is a reasonable idea. By the way Short is a former WCC challenger.Despite not being as strong as kasparov(as their match showed), noone on earth including the russian was strong enough to "typically crush Short as a bug".

 Returning to the topic, the BKG is not refuted at all. B can choose between some equalizing moves but nothing more. The great pro of 3.Bc4 over 3.Nf3 is that the latter allows some drawish lines. Among B third move options Qh4+ is the one which would make me happy as W, because it's very double edged. W can get a nice centre and a big lead in development if B doesn't know what he is doing.