Kings Gambit: Theory

Could you give me the variations leading to those positions, as I would like to look at them for some fun and that would save me some time.

The KG is, of course, a gambit and all true gambits are an attempt to offer material for initiative.  Time vs material is a pretty classic theme and, barring an outright blunder, seldom fails to be entertaining. Gambits, which are for fun, throw stats into the wind, take off the training wheels, bring out the mixed metaphors and go for the jugular. 

Shakespeare was a metaphor matador, waving the red cape in the face of a tidal wave of complaints.

I play the gambit exclusively against e5 (well for the past year and a half or so) and I never bother with a few variations.

You are all better players than me. But the think i like about KG is his tactical sharpness and because i somewhat lack a lot of tactical skills, i'm somewhat learning tactics by force.

yeah ok the reason I like the position is because I have gotten used to some really crazy positions in the KG, in my final position I have the plan of using blacks God aweful pawn structure and the ability to develop in a clear and logical pattern, 

so d6 is a mistake

h6 was just a place holder move to be completely honest. so please feel free to suggest something else.

If you want theory, look it up in MCO

although you might get some imaginative ideas here...

actually the piece is well worth it, so much so that engines suggest not taking the piece. and yes I am comfortable with it. I see the danger of an h-file battery from black, but it isn't as big a deal if I am well developed which I should be considering that is the point of the KG, and when I have tempo black really can't do what he wants he has to sit back and survive. At least that is how the gambit should be played by white. gain the initiative and go from there.

just cause the ECO and MCO decide a line is best doesn't mean it is, white has plenty of chances when the player cooks something up on his own while backed up by engines. never trust the ECO/MCO. John Shaw wrote a great book (and while I dissagree with his refutation of the Bishop's Gambit because it isn't critical enough, d5 would convince me a lot more than Nc6 but I digress, it does have some good stuff) go pick it up and read it. 

The King's Gambit has been my favourite opening since I was playing as a kid 20 years ago.  It tends to lead to rather wild positions that obviously don't always favour me, but it is fun and I have > 50% wins with it as White.  At the level I play at though people (esp. including myself) don't play perfect replies and if Black doesn't play the best moves they can quickly get in a mess in some cases.

Personally I always forget move orders and which move is best for a given situation, but I accepted my level of chess long ago so a lot of my opponents have similar levels of lack of opening theory.

I can easily believe that Grandmasters wouldn't consider the King's Gambit to be a sound opening to play though.

If by piece you mean the Muzio, then no. It's a terrible opening..

That is what I have set out to discover; whether or not it truly is unsound! I I am expecting it to be either a draw or a loss for White.

Also, at the random maniac who says playing 1. a4 2. a5 doesn't lose with perfect play. ...

I don't know what drugs you're on. That's all I'm gonna say

The Muzio is sound for OTB play, Sure it may not be best, but it sure ain't terrible, blacks best option is to not allow white the opprotunity and play Bg7 so obviously there is some power in the line.

That's the cowardly way out..hell no. Thou shall not decline a piece sacrifice.

Well, given there is no such thing as 'perfect play', it's no more a stupid statement than some of the others in here.  Like the one that started the thread which was complete nonsense!

How does white get even the tiniest of advantages in the Schallopp (3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e5 Nh5)? Shaw does not know any way, as well as almost all KG authorities. Sure, Black is not ambitious in that line- his main aim is simplifying the position to complete equality after white captures back the pawn, but he has a rock solid position. And after 3.Bc4 d5! I would take Black anytime.

I would agree that after 3.Bc4 d5 is a very annoying move and I would be happy to play Black, I don't mind playing as white either but d5 is the main reason I switched to Nf3.

There's something tragically bittersweet about the King's Gambit.  Great players such as Bronstein, Spassky, Adolf Anderssen, Greco, and even Ruy Lopez himself played it, it is a critical aspect of chess history, but sadly incorrect.  Alas, progress marches on.  There's still room for similar gambits in Fischer Random chess. "Similar" being used rather loosely here since obviously Fischer Random by definition doesn't use the classical formation.

Incorrect by what measure?