1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 3.Nf3 f5, the Miles defence or Adelaide countergambit

I don't understand at all your analysis.

Particularly on move 4, after Bc4 which of course is a bad move.

Why?

Because with f5, black contest white centre, create threat on e4, intending to play d5.

With Bc4, u just go into d5 for black which will gain tempo attacking your bishop.

With this possible continuation :

I dont understand why your opp played h6, afraid of Ng5 i guess but really, if he can play d5... And playing a move like this, especially in king's gambit, and more especially after playing f5, is awful.

The remaining moves are so weak from black that i wonder why u posted this game ...

If u want informations about this Adelaïde variation, u can watch a nice article on a New in Chess Yearbook (number 108, by Wolochowicz, improving on a former article by GM Wahls, one of the leading specialist of this variation).

Hi BigGStikman,

No, for a while I played 2...f5, the Panteldakis countergambit, against the Kingsgambit.

Nowadays I play 2...Qh4+ 3.g3 Qe7, the Keene defence, but it's hard to find any theory about it. Maybe I will make an article about this very rare defence in the near future.

Hi poucin,

Thanks for your reaction and contribution: it was a great help.

Normally I play the Vienna, 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 with an early f2-f4 plus Bf1-c4 as White, but in the period of publishing this "article" I was a bit experimenting with the Kingsgambit. This 10 minute game (on an other chess site) was the first (and only) time I had to encounter 2...Nc6 plus 3...f5.

Why my opponent played 4...h6? is still a puzzle to me: it weakens the white square on the Kingsside. Maybe he had something like 5...exf4 plus 6...g5 in mind? I don't know.