challenge - can anyone beat a bot using kings gambit as white

Posting because I really like this line but it seems utterly impossible to eek out any sort of advantage as white. Even using book moves and what the engine considers a “great” rook move you’re almost down a pawn from the beginning. So, I’d be fascinated if someone could show me a winning game with kings gambit against this bot Noam. He will most likely use the opening line from the game below: but it’s got to be on challenge mode and no engine help please. Curious what people come up with.

I will try.

It can be a case of "know your opponent". Noam is [programmed to be] quietly positional and good in strategic games. As a result, one promising way to have at him is to go bananas. In the King's Gambit, he will excel against the Kiesteritsky; which is strategically rich and nuanced; but can be vulnerable to hacker stuff like the Rosentreter Gambit. For example, I just perpetrated this little monstrosity:

I know it's not the line you love, but think it exemplifies an important thought about playing bots. I'll have a go with the Kieseritsky and let you know if I manage anything. I doubt it - I'm a 4. Bc4 player at heart...if only the Muzio could be coerced into soundness...which I doubt very much. Truth be told I don't have much of a feel for the Kieseritsky - I actually score better with the manifestly unsound Allgaier.

Awesome game Ralph! I'll have to give this line a look. Made it look easy.

Depends on the strength of the bot, but I have ZERO interest in even attempting to do so. The Kings Gambit sucks, and I will more than gladly play a Kings Gambit, BUT ONLY IF I HAVE BLACK!

@theReef63 It's no use. I've tried off and on, even looking lines up in my not-inconsiderable library of King's Gambit literature then trying again, and I can't put Noam down with the 6. Bc4 Kieseritsky. This might be to do with me having no feel for those lines, but I increasingly think it's because the 6. Bc4 Kiesertisky is a line in which any bot will be in its element: the positions are full of competing candidate moves and competing potential plans, machine calculation is likely better suited to them than the human mind.

I might have a go at Noam with the 6. Nxg4 Kieseritsky sometime

The old books write it off, but more recent machine-aided analysis has it as dynamically equal. Maybe it'll be less to Noam's taste.

I'm not touching the 6. d4 Kieseritsky with a barge pole though; Spassky having streakily beaten Fischer with it notwithstanding. Mar Del Plata 1960 was a very long time ago, and Ivanchuk seems to have convincingly refuted the 6. d4 idea.

Actually, I'll post the game later but I have just managed to put Noam down in the 6. Bc4 Kieseritsky. I thought I'd have One More Try. And I discover that "he" declines the [unsound, refuted] Rice Gambit and goes on to lose. Watch This Space...

Play this line. Lots of attacking chances and black is only -1 according to stockfish.

Let us be clear. This is not a good game. I was somewhere between "significantly worse" and "losing" for great chunks of it. But it's a case of "play the man, not the ball". We know Noam is a passive strategist. So throw the kitchen sink at him. A tactician would have eaten me alive. For starters, the Rice Gambit 8. O-O is utterly refuted by 8..., Bxe5 (I refuse to be more specific). But Noam is Noam. So this benighted excrescence of a game came out well for me.

Do Not Try This At Home, Boys and Girls.

@piratebt99chess the line you give at #9 is the main-line Muzio Gambit, a line which is very much dear to my heart (in my early teens, I spent a school summer vacation deep in analysis trying to make it work...but failed). Many years later, I'm still in the same boat and have resorted to other lines like the one I posted at #4.

But. Do you know something I don't? I'm rather old and don't spend much time with deep opening analysis any more. If you have the solution to either of the following (which are still the main theoretical Muzio "problem lines" as far as I'm aware) I imagine many a King's Gambit player would be much in your debt.

1) The old-fashioned draw line

2) The Double Muzio "almost working"

In the final position with ..., Qf5 White has tried g4 or Bxf4 or even Qe2 but they just don't seem to work out well against best play. For example there's an excellent free online article by Peter Millican at https://www.millican.org/chess/muzio.pdf but his line after ..., Qf5 doesn't seem to stand up to Stockfish (far too many lines get generated to post here).

Having said all that, it's a good practical line to play: how many sub-2000 opponents will be "booked up" to this depth on a sideline?