Combat Stories and King's Gambit

That is what I call "virtual reality".

Around move 12, white is already in serious trouble (simply 12...Bd6 and white is much worse).

Around move 16, white has (finally) equalised, and black puts the knight in the wrong square (after 16...Nd7 he should still have a tiny something). 19...Qf6 is also not very good- there is no need to trade everything to draw against a better player. You just need a GOOD POSITION to achieve that, and Black's was good enough.

41...Bxd2 is an elementary blunder, not a tactical shot.

And yes, nothing interesting about this game. Boring to death.

yes, a bad game. 

3...g5 has theory running 20 moves deep in several lines. "I think black is slightly better" is not a concrete argument. That line has  been considered equal at least in the last 10 years. of course being equal at best is not a great archievement and so the KG is unpopular. I'm not saying the KG is great, i' saying that your claim of a black advangare goes against well-estabilished theory and the fact that you're making it without knowing even the basic lines (everyone studying the KG for 10 minutes should know than h4 is the main line and Bc4 was considered somewhat dubious already during Chigorin's life...) makes the whole thing vaguely funny. 

The more I look at Naka's position after 12...Bd6, the more I dislike it. A sample line: 13.g3 (rather forced to stop ...Bf4 tricks) 13...Nd7! 14.Nf3 Nf6 15.0-0 Qc7 (simple chess) and White will be lucky to survive this mess of a position.

I'm going by tournament practice.  I don't care about the history of the opening line, and you mentioning it is completely irrelevant.  I have done well against both 4. Bc4 and your much-vaunted 4. h4 with the basic moves I quoted on the last page.  With them, I have obtained positions that yes, I felt were slightly better for Black. 

The fact that you consider them equal is not a huge difference, honestly. 

I was playing against fellow 2000-2199 and weak 2200-2300 masters, not internationally titled masters, but the point remains.

Speaking of laughable, I would love to see these mythical "20 move deep variations" in the modern 3...g5 lines of the KG.  I think you just made them up. 

4.h4 is the best move for white, and the resulting positions are COMPLETELY equal, and quite dull.

IMO if Black wants to play for a win against the KG, he has three options: 1.Declining with 2...Bc5 (quite good, and positionally very rich), 2...d5 3.ed5 ef4, and 2...ef4 3.Nf3 (or 3.Bc4) Ne7 (my current preference). All of them are objectively equal, but offer plenty of possibilities for active play to both sides.

What i consider equal is of no importance. What the entire chess world (including pfen, an IM...) thinks however must be taken seriously(of course im not saying that his and the general opinion can't be flawed, just that you should have some good reasons to go against the accepted view). The current opinion is that 3...g5 is a move which leads to complete and very sterile equality in many long forced lines. i't quite funny that despite the fact i am supporting the world-accepted view while you're supporting a very personal idea you are not providing a single move to prove your statement (the onus is clearly on you to prove your point since you're the one challenging the accepted evaluation). Not only this, you are showing that you dont even know theory up to move 4, which makes it hard to consider seriously your theorethical claims. 

"My beloved" 4.h4 (which i have never played in the whole life, just as i never played 3.Nf3, and in fact i played the KG for fun just in a couple of games; but when you have no rational arguments to prove your point it's rather common to accuse the opponent of being a partial and biased gambit-lover...) is the main line, is superior to 4.Bc4 and has been considered superior for something like 150 years. Of course some strong players have toyed with 4.Bc4 as a surprise weapon against reasonable opposition once in their life, but this makes no difference.

The theory on 3...g5 is exceedingly deep but rarely debated today since most black players prefer to play something less theoretically intense expecially since 3...g5 has a strong tendency to lead to theoretical draws. I can't buy you a book on the KG just to show you that you are talking of something you don't know anything about, and in general you don't find 20 moves deep lines explained for free online. I can provide you with an example, a very brief article(edit:2 articles in fact) dealing with a couple of lines, of course nothing in comparison to the immense theoretical exthent of this subject. 

6.Nxg4(sideline) is analyzed to 22.Ke2 =

The author(IM) sums up the status of the theory regarding 14.Re1, concluding that after 25...Bxd7(known theory, he is just reviewing) chances are roughly equal. Then he proposes a novelty (14.b4) which is analyzed in some detail.

The second article mainly deals with another (maybe inferior) option for white, 6.d4.

I have inserted it since it's full of references to the theoretical sources; worth noting is that (note to black 10) 14.Nc5! has been discovered by Rubenstein, i.e people were debating theory on move 14 90 years ago... but of course you can claim that 3...g5 is self-evidently =+ without need for further analysis, who is Rubenstein (known as a deep positional player and endgame master, not at all a romantic guy playing for traps, he probably saw the position only on the black side) to disagree with you and analyze the position up to move 14? 

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kaiss35.pdf

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kaiss36.pdf

Just two brief articles of course, dealing with a couple of the many lines avaiable for both sides.

There are a few ways for black to exchange queens early in the game and archieve dull equality with little theory(which means of course that from a theorethical perspective the KG pretty much sucks), but since you say that black is sligtly better according to you you are probably not going to play these lines. My personal suggestion is to stop playing 3...g5. You are a strong and lucky player if you have ventured this ambitious but severely weakening move against good opposition and tryed playing for a win without walking into one of the many pitfalls. However you won't always be lucky, so maybe you should search for a less theoretical and committal move. 

Fine, let's call it "equal", then.  Again, I'm no titled player, nor a huge expert on the King's Gambit.  I honestly don't see the colossal difference between "very small advantage for Black" and "equality" that you're making it out to be, but whatever.  Let's just call it "equal".   

Then, let me amend my statement to "The King's Gambit doesn't scare me after 3...g5". 

Anywho, thanks for the articles, but I knew the vast majority of that theory already.  Nothing overly complicated there, and certainly no precise variations that need to be memorized past 20 moves. 

that tough-talking quipster named Laser

took aim and then fired his taser

though he sounds a GM

he's sure not one of them

(guess his strut's 'bout as real as a phaser)

Sakaev in his recent Petroff book claims that Black should be slightly better after 3...g5 (although the analysis he offers is not such a big improvement over established theory). It's quite obvious that you know better, of course...

Normally when one writes something so embarrassingly lame and stupid, they think better of it, and think of something else.  But not AndyClifton.  Probably a microcosm of all his weak moves in chess games...

You rightly spotted that the prudent 4...Bg7! effectively refutes white's play- but greediness is a human virtue, isn't it?

Surely I misplayed many things, any thought on what could I have done better? Anyway, I like this opening very much, it seems like fun!

 I liked e5 against 3...Nf6. See a Black getting into trouble really quickly in a couple of games with this line earlier in the thread.

The only thing I can see being achieved by black after 4...d5 5.ed5 Qxd5 6.fe5 is losing a pawn. 4...fe4 on the other hand is perfectly OK.

Well hoo-weeeee, LaserBoy!  Now we's gettin' ready to rumble...

perceiving that I oft now flub

one LaserBoy dubbed me a scrub

one more expert lowly

who deems his views holy

(looks like there's one more scrub in that tub, bub)

a soidistant genius called Zorin

proclaimed the King's Gambit was borin'

though he claims for his lair

both the Eagle and Bear

seems the Land of Humility's foreign

of tradition he shows his defiance

with an ignorance termed "self-reliance"

come and watch his display

as some guy from class A

props himself on the shoulders of giants

though he tries to come off as Frank Nitti

he sounds more to me like Walter Mitty

one more 2000 Man

does the best that he can

(seems that posturing is never pretty)

lol

seems I've taken so to limericks

it's become (so you might say) my fix

when sideswiped by a lout

my muse, puckish, pops out

from Felix's (dime) bag of tricks 

Falkbeer Shmalkbeer...go hunt up some Dino steaks for the grill tonight.  Oh wait, I just noticed that you moved...