King's Gambit Refuted

And how old is this published analysis?

There hasn't been a decent book on the gambit in decades.

I don't see it. The d pawn was never pushed.

You actually think that you have posted some analysis on the KG don't you? Somebody should make a TV documentary on you. Has Black been toasted mate?

How am I trolling? Look at the diagram. That move cannot be played.

9.g3; 9.f2; 9.Bf4; 9.Nf4; 9.Qe1

www.365chess.com/opening.php?m=17&n=1385071

 good 

actually it is not blank it was glitch. it was pic of '" not sure if trolling or just stupid'"

Why does anyone care when some hack claims this or that opening is " refuted " ?  

It's my understanding that the 5. Ne5 is actually considered refuted and has been since sometime in the 19th century, but you didn't play the refutation which is Nc6, attacking where you were worried about defending f7.

For example here's an article from 1989 by Millican article (I don't think the analysis was new then): http://www.millican.org/chess/muzio.pdf

"5 Ne5? (the Salvio Gambit) is refuted by

This is why White should prefer 5. o-o with a roughly even game. The Muzio is not refuted, nor are many other interesting variations. (I tried to post this earlier but copied and pasted a line from the game and my post turned into a thin vertical that ran off the bottom of the browser so I deleted it and started again... I'm not sure if that was just my browers or the managed to "break" the form. Sorry I'm still learning how to make good posts in this forum.)

You should have mentioned that it was the Judith Polgar game.

How am I a hack? The analysis is solid.

That analysis is a bit useless. Why would I care about  pre-computer era analysis when Houdini and Rybka both reccomend f3?

Because f3 isn't as good. Try letting Houdini look deeper at Nc6. On my machine it likes it every bit as much as Nh6 after running all night. The horizon effect is why computers are still so bad at the opening and use opening books created by hundreds of years of analysis (like the analysis I pointed you to, which you could stand to look at; it is very good,) instead of playing the opening on their own. Computers aren't everything.

What analysis???

Your Profile says:

So if you only play 5-minute games online, why has your Live Chess rating never been above 1383, yet you've played 709 games? It doesn't make any sense. Masters wouldn't play the King's Gambit if it wasn't sound.

I found another article which mentions Nc6. http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz195.pdf Tim Harding "6...Nc6!, recommended by Steinitz in 1885 in his International Chess Magazine, is reckoned to be critical. d1) 7 Qxg4? got Steinitz a lost position against Hruby at Vienna 1882, although he eventually won the game. d2) The critical line is reckoned to be 7 Nxf7 Bc5 8 Qe1 g3 9 Nxh8 Bf2 10 Qd1 Nf6 when Black threatens 11...Ng4, and if here 11 h3 or 11 d4, Black replies 11...d5. The elegant theoretical main line goes 11 Be2 d6 12 c3 Bg4 13 h3 Ne5! 14 d4 f3 15 Bxf3 Nxf3 16 gxf3 g2+! 17 Ke2 Bxf3+! 18 Kxf3 Qxe4+ 19 Kxf2 gxh1=Q, etc. Can computer analysis discover any way through the complications for White? If not, the Salvio is busted."

"

Harding also mentions your f3 line calling it "the old main line" and crediting Zukertort for pioneering it against Steinitz in the sixth game of their match in 1872... more pre-computer analysis. Though this article is from 2012 and one would assume Harding has checked it with computers.

6. Nc6 is not Houdini's or Rybka's first choice. I would rather trust that than outdated textbooks.

Korchnoi said years ago that this line is bad for White.  Why are you bringing up old news as if you solved this?  Maybe better to say "Inferior Line of King's Gambit I face regularly"?

For the same reason John Watson writes misleading titles.

The King's Gambit is not refuted.

Here is a nice variation: