kings gambit dubious?

I would, but you will get those arguing for it here I guarantee.

Fischer said it, The King's Gambit is a bust.

White can equalise at most, later at some point into the game.

Why play an opening whith white, where you can equalise at most?

That is how opening theory develops: once upon a time, they considered this gambit the best.

Fischer might have said it, but the system he proposed for black is far from the best, and is something most white players would love to see.

I don't mean to hijack your post caliboy613, but I'm wondering, what do ppl higher rated than me think of the Quuade variation?

I own John Shaw's 'The King's Gambit,' and I'm considering making a good study of it. The book is a few years old, so I'm wondering, has this variation he highly recommends held up? Because the gist of it is, according to Shaw, 4. Nc3!? is much better than 4.h4, the more traditional move. 

So does modern theory already not think 1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 d6 is not the optimal line?

You think white could get an advantage here?

Stockfish does not think so, it evaluates it in black's favour slightly, and Stockfish is usually good

in similar open positions.

Against the Fischer Defence, Shaw recommends taking the game into Quuade territory: 

The common plan in the Quuade is to play g2-g3. Here White is trying to transpose the game into a Quuade variation, and it's actually a favourable move order for that. 

At your (and my) level the King's Gambit is fine. 

You should study tons of theory to know what happens here.

Instead, black gets fully equal after 4...Nf6(why g5?) 5. Bd3 Be7 6. Bf4 0-0

White has better center, but the black king is better sheltered.

0.0, already on the 6th move.

Is not that a bust?

Who wants to get fully equal with white on the 6th move?

Thanks Lyudmil. I'm no expert, and I haven't read enough of Shaw's work to challenge what your saying with his thoughts, either.

But I'm at a crossroads. I've put some time and effort into the early portion of the book, but through reading ahead at variation intros and chapter conclusions, I'm kind of pausing to decide whether or not to continue with it. As I've been harping on, Shaw basically stresses this Quuade variation as the future of the opening.

You see, it's a challenging book. I have some time and am more than willing to put in ALOT of effort. For some reason I don't know how to express, I have always wanted to play this opening. But if it's truly busted, why would I bother with such an investment? To me, it comes down to the viability of the Quuade. 

Sucks if it's a bust, too, as I already bought the book, and have put some time in. Next time I'll research before buying. I kind of know no one can really tell me what to do from here, but I guess I'm hoping for advice from ppl who've read the book. Anyways, ty again.

Not at all, dear Mr. Ruhk.

Mr. Shaw is a deep researcher and has put his soul into it,

so reading the book can hurt in no way, don't regret it.

The lines you will learn will give you a lot.

Still, Mr. Shaw is not Fischer.

King's Gambit isn't busted, especially at the club level. Engines may not like it as much as Ruy Lopez or Giuco Piano, but it still provides practical chances. With best play it is believed Black will equalize in any sound opening line, so I wouldn't worry too much about engine evals as long as it isn't outright refuted (like Damiano defense).

I myself am studying John Shaw's book on the opening. It is quite challenging to me too (primarily because it is designed as a rather exhaustive book to prepare very strong players in the opening). The main problem I have is seeing all the wide range of tactical possibilities, which I can improve by doing tactics puzzles often. I actually think it's a great opening to use at the club level if you need to work on your tactics (which almost every club player does). Here's a recent OTB chess game I where I played the White side of the Quaade line

.

Below 2400, no named opening is really dubious.

Bobby Fisher made it clear that the King's Gambit is unsound.  Since he's the greatest player ever, I'll listen to him.

Thx CrazyChess, and Lyudmil, again.

But, wow, ty most of all to gchess33!! You've given me new hope

I'm doing exactly what you're doing, dividing my study time between Shaw and tactics. I don't like doing tactics online because I have no discipline, I always want to jump in and start making moves. I use puzzle books, with the answers in back, and for some reason I can get myself to try very hard to solve each puzzle before I look up the answer. Puzzles that still stump me, I take a second look and try to memorize the patterns.

As for Shaw, I've been a little paralyzed for 2 days, but I'm going to go ahead and try the chapter on the Quuade. I really liked the otb game you shared, btw, good for you!! And I'm jealous of your daily chess rating  Ty again for sharing your experiences with the book, just what I was hoping for.

I find it hilarious that patzers  are challenging Fischer's assessment of the King's Gambit hiding behind their favorite search engine.  For an experiment I registered my ICC account as a computer using Houdini's latest pro version and running on the top of the line Alienware gaming computer.  Black won every King's Gambit against all the other top-rated computer engines.  But if you like to lose games, go ahead and play it.  It's no skin off my nose.

I am a patzer, but in my own defense, I don't use an engine. I just shared what I've been learning in a respected book - it was Chess Publishing's book of the Year - written by a modern GM. I'm a Fischer fan, too, but like I said, I've always wanted to play the King's Gambit. Also, in Fischer's famous article, it's not like he published an exhaustive refutation, it wasn't even that long. He closed by saying something like, "and if White plays differently, he loses differently," something like that. Also, Fischer played the opening at least once that I know of after his article

There are some recent strong engine vs. engine games where White did not lose playing King's gambit. Below is from TCEC Season 10 Stage 1 Round 15.

Now I know you may be thinking that a draw in King's gambit where one engine is much stronger than the other shows that the opening is inferior. But both engines are very strong in comparison to club players, and yet White holds just fine. There may be a refutation to King's Gambit, but if it exists, it isn't obvious right now. My conclusion is that it works fine for club players and even titled players if they like the positions. The reason it has fallen out of favor is because it is a very sharp, risky opening where the results won't be as reliable as with a solid proven opening like the Ruy Lopez.

 Vassily Ivanchuk has played it, and won, against top competition several times in since 2015. Here's a nice blitz game that ends in checkmate:

Fischer wrote an article about the Kings Gambit claiming it was refuted after losing to Spassky in the opening...in the quaade 4.Nc3 Nf6 is only good for white. The fischer defense hasn't been a top level serious defense for good reason. Fischer also said the french was a wrong opening while losing to it many times. Theory changes over the course of 50 years you know. If you want to play Nf6, play it on move 3 not 4.