SuperiorConfidentHot I don't know what the hell you are talking about - and I'm pretty sure you don't either. The whole point of the King's Gambit is that it makes things VERY hard for black. If you're a professional chess player yes you will welcome the king's gambit, for amateurs as said it's absolutely fine. It wasn't at the pinnacle of chess for hundreds of years while being a bad opening that black can easily hurt white with. That's the whole point of every opening - to get easy play and chances from it.
It's also not difficult to learn. What's difficult to learn is how to refute it. That's how the opening works. That's why at low levels it does really well while at professional level it struggles.
No. Above a certain skill threshold black gets to be in the driver's seat in that the ask for white is harder AND black gets his choice of which of those more challenging projects he is going to saddle white up with. By the time black is prepared to comfortably play against the KG, white already has a harsh if serviceable game.
Above a certain skill threshold like 2700? Maybe. I believe Carlsen has had the odd success with it against other Super GMs however.
That's far beside the point, the qualities that make it more difficult for white than black are the important bits. I think people who play the KGs or things like it are either doing it as a flavor choice, hoping for the type of game that they want to explore and play or because they are making a lofty and ambitious claim. You can definitely play the KG against any chess player that i've ever seen or heard of but i'd be very surprised to find anyone in this world and time where openings are all that critical. Maybe chess is super clinical and well understood, but i'd have to see it to believe it before I start having that kind of respect or credit to any of my fellow chess players and such. Tentatively, I bet you can more than get away with MOST things that don't sufficiently go boom.
Are you actually serious? Everyone from FMs up have been complaining about how much openings matter for centuries. The higher up the level the more they matter.
So you're seriously claiming that people played the King's Gambit as white for hundreds of years at the pinnacle of the game because what - they liked the positions even though they were getting hurt by it? That's ridiculous. What they liked was getting great positions as white and winning which is what the King's Gambit gave them. I'm afraid you don't understand what you're talking about at all.
It's written down in black and white in books about how they believed it was the theoretically the best or one of the best openings. It only started to fall by the wayside from the elite game about the 1950s or so, Alekhine, Capablanca, Nimzowitsch, early Botvinnik etc. all idiots not realizing what a stupid move white was making huh?
It's black that has the massively hard game. I don't know how you got that ridiculous idea. Please don't try to argue with me because you are just wrong.
This refutes this gambit
That's just the Classical, that's what I play myself. It bypasses all of the typical lines. You get a completely different game. You don't accept the pawn and white still gets an advantage. Saying this refutes it is a radical statement that is not shared by the rest of chess.
If you play the Classical you are actually giving the King's Gambit the respect it deserves, by not trying to act like a gm that knows how to (with a lot of effort in a long game) gain the upper hand as black after taking the pawn.