Bishop's opening, Berlin, Greco Gambit

I find some of the lines of this gambit really aggressive when accepted, similar to the Urusov Gambit, it uses double exposure (which should be a tactic) to have a development like the King's Gambit. Surprisingly, it's not popular like the other gambits, and likely under rated too, It should be on your top ten when you look deeper into it.

Ok I'll bite. What's wrong with taking either pawn or playing d5?

Good Question, like I said this is similar to the urusov and king's gambit. Double exposure like the Urusov, and Flank pawn undermining center control like the King's. When taking f4 you get into a transposition of King's gambit Accepted, Bishop's Gambit, Cozio defense, which is a very bad defense for black. There is the e4 pawn but when taken it will give white a better development with d3. The move d5 is a sharp defense against f4 and to be honest, it's the safer way to approach this gambit even if that means your down a pawn.

Beginners will more than likely fall into this line of the gambit

Theoretically this position is equal, however I prefer white since you would have the starting move. I still don't like this line though, maybe castling Q-side is the better option, actually lets see what would happen.

I'd rather suffer with doubled pawns than lose a bishop, I'd rather have 2 Bishops and 0 Knights than, 1 Bishop and 1 Knight.

Aren't you a beginner yourself? You are based on your ratings - so you shouldn't focus on all this theory, rather you should study tactics, because no matter what the first 14 moves are, the game is likely to be decided by someone hanging a piece or losing to a basic tactic.

When I coached a high school chess team in the '90's - before Kasparov played it and the Bishop's Opening had been out of favor for 60 years - we rode the Bishop's Opening to a county championship and 3rd in state.

BUT, we didn't have much luck playing f4 until move 5.

At chessgames.com's database, I see 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 f4 won 41%, drew 18%, and lost 41%.

The variation we favored, 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d3 Nc6 4 Nc3 Bc5 5 f4 won 49%, drew 20%, and lost only 21% of the time.  That fits our experience, though we had a better result at the high school level because the first reaction of many Black players who had never seen 2 Bc4 was that White must be a weak player who was trying to sneak in some version of the Scholar's Mate and often just played defensively early.

We had a very strong game if Black didn't play 4 Bc5 but did something less aggressive like 4...d6 or 4,,,h6.  If Black's in a hurry to castle K-side, pushing the f-pawn one more square to f5 sort of seals-off his pieces from his King: you can castle Q-side, send your g and h pawns forward and it's hard to stop, especially if you're not familiar with this opening and playing against someone who is.  The best way to try to stop it is often to counterattack in the middle with ...d5!, but Black often starts with the a and b pawns which are behind White's f, g, h pawns in coming into contact and Black's K is the one that gets unmasked.

I see Karjakin played 1 e4 2 Bc4 3 d3 in 2005 where he played 4 Nc3 as our team played, though he castled K-side and didn't get in f4 until move 9 - but he also pushed it to f5 on the next move as we often did.  Eventually he throws his g-pawn forward and wins with a K-side attack.

In 2009, he continued with 4 Nf3 and an open game with most of the action in the middle which resulted in Karjakin being down a couple of pawns and losing the endgame.

I guess I was asking for something more specific. It looks like all the variations or easily equal or better and White doesn't win there very often in databases but what you said this gambit is underrated when you look deeper into it.

You know actually, This gambit is just a delayed variation of Bishop's Gambit Cozio defense (if you accept it) So yeah maybe it's finely rated, I have to regret that this gambit was under rated, sorry about that.

I should also say when you look a bit deeper accepting it doesn't seem to be as good for Black as it looks at first. It seems the main problem with it is Black has other promising options. A while back I was looking as some "reversed KG" positions and it was always amazing the critical test of the KG is to accept it but a lot of Black f5 gambits are considered crap with the critical lines being to hit back with d4 or to play Bc4 and go into some kind of KGD up a tempo or something... (eg 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 f5 and I think here Black might be ok if White takes it because the Bishop has no business on that square in the KGA, but if White declines it Black is just playing a normal line down a tempo) which makes maybe good for Blitz at some level where players take the f-pawn on instinct... but I've wondered off topic.

Excuse me, but your one to only win in blitz games, speaking of you are based on your ratings, Did you ever think about taking your time in chess? Also about losing a pawn here, i'm sure you will realize that in gambits you do what ever you can to trip up your opponent, even if that means losing material in gain of tempo. I understand your point in tactics, but I think it's best to pay attention to some starting moves so you can get a good game simply because a good start will result with a good finish (you better not criticize me on my opinion). Heck there are even tactics in openings as well. Have you seen this before?

This is obviously a mistake for white but hey, don't we all make mistakes in chess and in physical life? I'm gonna find tactics and great plays if I do my best. You're right, maybe I should be doing tactics right now, but when someone tells me to do something, I would do it with compensation for it, in this case I already do.