IS KING GAMBIT A GOOD OPENING

    OFTEN, THOUGH THE OPENING IS AGGRESSION,I reckon there appeared to be

the aderse position and reverse position on the chess board?

What about you guys opinion,  is there no perfect formulas for opening like Once great player mentioned alike of BOBBY FISHER? PLEASE COMMENT,THANKS!

I really like the king's gambit. It is a strong opening with a good success rate for white.

I played it for little while and I found that if black knew exactly what to do I would always be fighting for equality as white. The KG is almost never played at high levels either so I think it's not very good.

Kings Gambit is great game but tough going against strong players

The King's gambit, unlike the oftenly played Queen's gambit, is that it exposes the White King to numerous threats for the advantage of an aggresive initiative at the start of the game (opening the king's bishop file, thereby attacking the weak f7 square early in the game with sacrificial attacking options).  However, with proper handling at the other side of the board, black could easily equalize or even launch a counter-attack.

proof ?

When you say 'easily' you should know the answer, and you must be able to write it down on one page. since nobody can do that, it is wrong.

There are written hundreds of books about the kings gambit, and still manny many open questions.

KG is considered to be one of the most-studied openings, so many high-level players will know it inside and out, and they stay away from it because of that.  But at lower levels, it's perfectly acceptable to play.

It IS very much studied, BUT, many of these analysis are from 19th century.

Also, since it is more tactical than any other opening, these (old) variants need a computercheck.

In my opinion, (many GMs said essentially the same), it is not played as much on highest level, because you can fall into a prepared trap by a low-rated player (no chance to dismantle or refute the trap in a two-hours game, because of the tactical character of the positions).

I'm always playing it in fast games, because it makes for an exciting and sharp tactical game. On the other hand, black can push white into cramped positions with Be7 - Bh4+; or 1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 e4.

So you all don't consider Fischer's Defense to be a bust?

So much opinion!

And no proof provided! 

Well, the variation above, 1.e4 e5, 2.f4 d5, 3.ed (Falkbeer Counter Gambit)  is considered as inferior for black, by most theoreticians.

(Nimzowitsch's variant 3....c6 is even not considered as the relatively best for black.)

Sorry, I only cite the opinion of theoreticians, that one finds in most sources.

Today, two lines, 1.e4 e5, 2.f4 ef, 3.Nf3 g5 (Philidor) and 3... d6 (Fischer) compete as considered  best for black. The analysis and evaluations in both variants are still far from being complete.

But there is a certain amount of conviction among strong players, that black equalizes in both cases.

People say it is bad because of this reason, and others say good because of that reason.  There is nothing wrong with equality either!  Here's a good point.  How many openings are played that are equal, yet fully playable?  The Slow Italian is a great example.  The point is, play what you are comfortable with, or what you enjoy.  There are still GM's playing this opening - it is fully playable.  For that matter, there are GM's playing many openings. 

As far as the Fischer defense is concerned, I didn't do well when I tried it before.  Now I have played the ...g5-...g4-...Bg7 variation before with a good game.  I sacked a rook for three passed pawns on the kingside and queened.  A very energetic opening from both sides. 

I have a book at the house by Korchnoi on the King's Gambit, and he assesses it as definetely playable for White. 

i do not like it i prefer queens gambit because it does not leave you king so open

Dmytro wrote:

What does it mean "inferior"?

"Today, two lines, 1.e4 e5, 2.f4 ef, 3.Nf3 g5 (Philidor) and 3... d6 (Fischer) compete as considered  best for black. The analysis and evaluations in both variants are still far from being complete."

If you can play such chess you may play this. But a lot of people play simply 1.e4 e5, 2.f4 ef, 3.Nf3 d5 and also equalize.

Inferior means in this case that white either keeps the pawn with good play, or if he gives it back, he has a much better endgame - probably a winning position in both cases.

'If you can play like this...' I don't understand this remark.

Concerning your last remark, the life of black is not easier in the last variant, as the theory claims. I have also very good experiences against it. 

I do not see a way to equality here.

Personally I am convinced that both variants that I mentioned are better than the one that you propose.

ask nigel short. go to www.chessbase.com and look at his latest games with karjakin

I agree with mandelshtam here.  The Classical Main Line and the Fischer Defense are much better than the Abbazia.  I believe that White can retain an initiative in the Classical Main Line.  The Fischer leads to unclear and complex positions.  I would probably prefer the Fischer variation.  But that is just taste.

It's a good way for white to burn out fast.

Supernova style.

But playing both sides of it is more fun than those stuck in the mud games.

its a good way to die fast, for both sides. People who don't live an interesting , but long life accuse the rest of 'burning out fast'...

I like it, because most of the time, my opponents don't know how to play against it.  So I often get a superior game with my pieces well developed, and I usually get my pawn back quickly.  It is great for speed chess too.

It is also good for players who are learning the game.  It is a great opening for teaching tactics and piece development.

I usually don't play it against superior opponents with a long time control, though, because I'm not sure how sound it is, and pawn-down middlegames against better opponents are not my cup of tea.

 I agreed, speed wise is Ok, too risky to play with good player, that is it, thanks