Are there reasons to play King's Gambit over Queen's Gambit?

The analysis from the 80s no longer really applies, I don't think. I started playing the KG, much to the chagrin of my coach, because Judith Polgar played it. She became the youngest GM in history using the KG as one of her main weapons and I figured if it was good enough for her, it was good enough for me. Since then, computer analysis has show that white is playing from behind as soon as black accepts the gambit, but is ahead if black refuses the gambit. The fact that black wins more than white in the games of masters (white wins 30%, black wins 36%), points to its dubious nature. Black should never win more often than white. It's much like the Alekhine: it does great in non-master games, but in the games of masters it's a poor choice.

The QG is much more solid. Both are playable.

Having said that... if you enjoy sharp openings like that where you actually gambit a pawn for real then go for it. But depending on your level you might just end up running into people that know the theory well and you end up playing quite an uncomfortable position.

It depends what you enjoy. If you enjoy both equally then you can play both... if you care about being fundamentally solid then play the better openings.

It also depends on how much time you have to spend on Chess. It's better to spend that time learning the superior lines. In the end... unless you plan on playing at a master+ level then both should be completely viable and very educational.

I seem to recall this question cropping up time and again over the years. It's not really a good question at all. It's basically: Why is a Queen-pawn opening saner looking than a King-pawn opening? To answer this, you need to first learn how to play chess.

There are different levels of master, though, which is a point that I believe is worth noting.

Yes, white struggles (in the KG Accepted), even at the lower master levels.

In the higher levels though, (grandmaster and up), white statistically does fine, even against other grandmasters.

From that, the most likely conclusion is that white is objectively fine in the KG Accepted ... but it takes a high level of skill to wield it properly. (Judit, for example, certainly qualifies!)

That honestly kinda hurts but ok

kings gambit opens the queen and ligh scqaured bishop queens gambit opens the dark scqaued bishop and queen

@Stil1 - yeah, maybe. I'm not sure where your numbers come from, but I'll take your word on it. I doubt, however, that we'll ever see the KG in something like the Candidate's or the WCC, unless Ian loses his mind and busts it out in the blitz section of a tiebreak. It could happen. He is a big fan of the KG. I would pay money to see it, even! But I don't think it's going to happen.

That'd be fun to see, for sure. I'm guessing (hoping) the match will feature some unusual/exciting openings, besides the normal fare.

I use this database: https://old.chesstempo.com/game-database.html

At the top right corner, you can select the ratings range. The stats for each opening obviously change, depending on the ratings level.

You can play through (or click through) to find your opening variations. On the tab below, you can click on "Games for Position" if you'd like to explore more. (Click on W ELo or B Elo to sort games by rating ...)

Actually, the QG gives better chances to play for a win as it is more complex and gives White a lot of different options. In the KG Black has all the options.

That... is nonsense. You really think todays top grandmasters are all playing for draws when they play the QG?

I would argue that if you follow the Nf3 lines of the KG, you tend to get a lot of symmetry, but the Bishop's Gambit lines are practically never symmetrical. This is possibly why the BG lines tend to be more popular at the highest level of play than the Nf3 lines (both Polgar and Fischer, yes Fischer, preferred them). There's nothing symmetrical about this game that I played a few weeks ago and nothing symmetrical about any of the BG variation games that I've played.

The classic QG exchange of cxd5, exd5 gives each player a sphere of the board to engage their various attacking plans.

Remember, there are no boring openings, just boring players.

Lulling your opponent into a state of somnolence is a legitimate strategy.

@optimissed - when you play the Bishop's Gambit, you have to have nerves of steel and  be able to live with the fact that your king is going to spend much of the game alone on the second rank. Black's reaction is almost always "this is unsound and I'm going to punish it" but the truth is that it's remarkably hard to pin down the king. Half the time, neither team ends up castling and pure chaos erupts on the board. If you can weather the kingside attack, your pieces are better positioned for the late middle game.

Do I always weather the storm? No, but it's always fun, and honestly that matters much more to me.

I found KG is very fun and agressive in many lines. QG is like chilling and waiting for opportunity to win positionally. 

And this means what?

Nepo just won today with the King's Gambit in 34 moves. Yep, it's trash.

https://www.chess.com/events/2021-fide-world-blitz-chess-championship/05/Nepomniachtchi_Ian-Sanal_Vahap

I think people play a lot of worse gambits these days but the KG isn't as hip to them anymore since it's been around for so long. It's alright but at the same time I am not sure when the last time was that it was played in a WC match or candidates.