for those who say the kings gambit is refuted

This topic is for you. Here you can post your refutations to prove your claim:)

Both sides of the King's Gambit Accepted scares me! If someone plays it at my rating, I think they know tactical stuff which makes me play passively because, I just don't think opening the King-side to attack, so early, without developement, is the best way to play this game

Not refuted just not in fashion at the highest levels because they have found what seem at the moment to be more promising ways of opening the game.

Still an opening very well worth playing at any level below 2000 since it teaches you a lot about attacking and defending chess.

Remember in ten years time we will all be hearing new opening stories and numerous revivals will be proudly demonstated.

You cannot win or lose a game of chess and blame it on any opening it depends on your play. I always play kingside openings because I understand them better.

 White's major problems are on the Kieseritzky and after 3...h6, but even more depressing, the traditional 'good lines' for white (like the Schalopp defence) are under a cloud (or even the endgame arising from the Falkbeer)

It's a good opening if u don't like to study a lot of theory and want to develop all of the pieces and want to put pressure using the f-file, but with the Kieseritzky I've a lot of winning and drawing games against the KG

thanks for answers:) but i think some of you didnt read the topic well enough. this thread was for concrete lines. if you say the kings gambit is bad then give a line that it does bad in. 3...h6 in itself is not a refutation. you need to go much deeper than that

If u doesn't know the kieseritzky gambit it's not my problem man. 

Andersson's opening seems to me to throw away a move for white but then white is a move ahead, and anyway a move at the begining is not sufficient to win.

Nothing in chess is concrete; dogmatism leads to error there are always exceptions too rules. Many positions that arise from the openings are unprovable that is why we play if it was concrete like noughts and crosses we would not play the game.

Because a better player beats me playing any opening does not prove the opening is poor it proves he is better.

i know that line much deeper than what you shared and in the lines i know white cant possible be said to be refuted. thats why i asked for lines:)

Well man I share only the basic position of this gambit and for me this position is a good compensation for black (fritz quotes it -0.11 for Black, not a lot of vantage)

i agree i play 3...g5 myself and like the positions im getting from both sides

I didn't say the King's Gambit is refuted.

Anything black plays against the King's Gambit is refuted.

As far as I'm concerned, it's up to white to prove compensation for the pawn, not black to prove a forced win.  Modern theory suggests that black at least equalizes, and may retain some advantage... that's refuted enough for the vast majority of strong masters.  Feel free to research some of black's supposed refutations and provide some concrete analysis from the white side... :)

-matt

White's best try in the King's Gambit:

kings gambit may not be the best at the top professional level against a knowledgable opponent

but I like it because at the amateur level even good players ~viz, better than me~ are prone to mishaps/blunders even though they are paying attention. sort of like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxtP7QxgB5Q&feature=related

hence, although no game is safe in my hands i find there is still a chance of redemption if i have misplayed the opening phase