If you can get good compensation for the sac'd knight, the Muzio Gambit is one of thee best variations of the KG.
King's Gambit, Kieseritsky vs Muzio
Sort:
I ended up choosing the Muzio Gambit quite a while back for the very reason you are considering it now. In my opinion, the Muzio Gambit is a reasonable practical choice, given that it is difficult to defend so precisely. However, I will likely soon be giving up 4.Bc4 (and likely, the King's Gambit altogether), not because I ran into problems with the Muzio - but because I never found myself in a Muzio! Admittedly, the sample size is small, but every time my opponent has been invited to play 4...g4, he/she has instead opted for 4...Bg7, with a Hanstein Gambit being the result.
I have tried for a while to play around with the Hanstein to see if there is something there for White, but unfortunately, it looks like White is either down a pawn for insufficient compensation, or White regains the pawn but gets a difficult game while Black calls the shots. Obviously, I am no master, so perhaps there are things I missed in my analysis and in my games, but it seems to me that the dreadfully boring sqeeze that Black can put on White in the Hanstein makes the entire line unworthwhile.
So if you do end up choosing the Muzio, remember to keep 4...Bg7 in mind as well. Otherwise, I'd stick with the Kieseritzky, or even switch out of the King's Gambit altogether. I'll miss the King's Gambit, but it'll be for the better if it means not having to play the Hanstein again.
I like to play the King's Gambit and I often get positions that I am happy with but when the game goes into the Kieseritsky gambit I often end up with a bad positions. When black plays 3. ...g5 I have the option to avoid the Kieseritsky for the Muzio gambit.
I get the feeling that Muzio gambit could be pretty difficult for black if he isent too familiar with it.
Wich variation do you people prefer? Wich one is easier to play? Wich one is considerd to be better theoreticly?