In the Italian gambit black can take with the bishop, which removes all the fun for white.
So it's better to choose between the Scotch Gambit and the Vienna Gambit (they're similar looking so maybe this is what you meant).
Both are good and lead to principled positions. It's a matter of personal taste IMO.
I think you are correct on the Scotch Gambit. The system I'm looking at would bypass the potential for entering into the Italian Gambit and if the Italian game was reached the most logical continuation would be the Steinitz-Sveshnkikov variation. My gut tells me that the Vienna might be more compact compared to the system I'm thinking about. But the system would really be interesting to play if you could remember all the transpositions involved in it. Hmmm....looks like a little more research is in order.
Steinitz-Sveshnkikov variation, hmm. I don't recognize the name at all, but I've had the position multiple times, including in over the board tournament play.
I think it's important to just play a lot, and when you do that you'll enjoy some positions but not others, and whatever you enjoy just keep doing that... I mean, forums like this are useful too, because you wouldn't want to spend a year on the Latvian Gambit only to discover it's terrible... so yes, those gambits are very reasonable. Which is better? I'd say they're both very solid and reasonable choices (scotch and vienna) and you won't have to stop playing them after you get better like the Latvian. So try some games with both and see what you like 
Good point. Thanks for the input. I'll give them each a go and ttry to find some sample games in the lines to see if anything jumps out at me that looks like I might like it or better suites my style of play.
One of my favorite gambits in the Italian Opening. I don't play it myself but I've had much success with it when I was like 1300. Take a look, please.
If Bxd4, it typically leads to a position where white is down a pawn but has double bishops and more active position to compensation. If exd4, white gets a lot of traps and should win easily.
A common fork is the Qh5+ hitting the bishop.
Black shouldn't enter into e5 d5 gambits when there's no pawn on c3, which is why 5...Bxd4 is correct... not that (I assume) any of the OP's opponents will know any of that 
A common fork is the Qh5+ hitting the bishop.
Black shouldn't enter into e5 d5 gambits when there's no pawn on c3, which is why 5...Bxd4 is correct... not that (I assume) any of the OP's opponents will know any of that
WAT DO U MEAN Bxd4 is theory. I would honestly recommend Bxd4 cuz exd4 allowed e5 and all kinds of traps arise.
I also recommended 5...Bxd4... I've fallen for that trap (the trap of not playing that) too many times when I was new
Introduction To The Vienna Game & Gambit...
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/introduction-to-the-vienna-game-gambit
I'm trying to expand my opening knowledge and learn something new. I'm trying to decide between playing the Vienna or the Italian Gambit System. Any thoughts as to which might be more enjoyable? more principled? Easier to comprehend and retain the concepts?
I would appreciate your input.
Thanks!