King's gambit vs Vienna gambit

What are the pro's and con's of both and which one do you prefer?

Hi ruben72d--neither is an opening that I'd recommend against top-level opponents.  The Vienna has been heavily analyzed and gives black easy equality after the ...d5 push, while Fischer's Defense to the KGA also leaves white with an uphill battle.  They both offer a certain surprise value that's liable to succeed against weaker opposition, but the same could be said for just about anything else for that matter.  The non-gambit Vienna Game is hardly thrilling but less risky, and a decent option for 1. e4-ers who are tired of the Ruy Lopez and Italian all the time.

As an addicted King's Gambit player, I'd like to know more about the differences too.

Well, at least you did not say Fischer's Defence is a refution of the King's Gambit like some others of the tin foil hat brigade that frequent this place.

As to the question at hand about which 'gambit' is prefered and their accompanying pros and cons, the question is simply to broad to answer with any certainty. The King's Gambit is 1.e4 e5 2.f4 after which you have 2..exf4, 2..d5, 2..Bc5, 2..d6, 2..Nc6, 2..Qh4+ and 2..Qf6. After 2..exf4 you have 3.Nf3, 3.Bc4, 3.Qf3, 3.Nc3, 3.Be2 and so on. After 3.Nf3 there are at least half a dozen schemes that are possible. Of course, not all of these lines would are sound but given the right circumstance are quite playable. For arguements sake, I use the Keres Mason Gambit all the time (1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nc3) in blitz and rapid with some success (about 65%) but in slower games where ones opponent has the time to think, it is not the best idea to place ones King on e2 after the fourth move.

As for the Vienna Gambit (that is after 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4), you have the same issue. You have the Stenitiz, Percie and Hamppe Alligar Gambits to look for (and before someone points it out 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5 is not a gambit).

At best, the pro and cons between the two lies in that one is more flexable than the other in the sense that with the King's Gambit white has more than one method of attack to choose from. Where as those Vienna Gambits are more static and defined by theory.

Finally, what do I prefer? The King's Gambit mainly for it's flexiability. I also like using the Vienna Gambit as I am a fan of the Hamppe. The Vienna also comes with one other benefit. After 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 some people smirk and play 2..Nf6 thinking 3.f4 is automatic and that playing d5 is equal if not better for Black. I play 3.Nf3 and on 3..Nc6 I go for the Belgrade Gambit 4.d4 and 5.Nd5. The only downside with this move order is 3..d6

I am sure there will people who will try to poke holes in what I have said by quoting (dogmatic) waffle about the mystical powers of Fischer's defence and or any other 1 or 2 move refutations and or Grandmaster's not playing the King's Gambit and or on and on and on....I look at it this way, nearly 5 centuries of play and analysis and the King's (knight) Gambit is not broke yet, just what does the Tin Foil Hat brigade know any way?

HTH

Fischer's Defense to the King's Gambit is fine for White, in fact White is better.

after doing some further research i decided to go for the vienna since this gives white the possibility to go for a positional game as well as a more tactical with the vienna gambit. Does anyone know any good books for the vienna? Right know i've only seen the one from Gary Lane and this one seems rather limited.

the most complete... though dated... book on the Vienna is T.D. Harding's "Vienna Opening"

When I play 1.(e4) e5 as Black, I feel more comfortable when playing against the Vienna Game than against the King's Gambit

LOLZ....you wot?

The difference is clear, the first one loses by force, the second one does not.

Really Granmassa, please tell us which is which?

There is a well known equation that determines which one is which one, It was maide by Darwin but it was Voltaire who brought it to light. 

Basically the Kings gambit loses, the vienna does not.

Yes, the Vienna gambit is clearly better. In this case 3...exf4?! is an inaccuracy cuz of 4. e5!

I prefer the kings gambit because it's played less often, 2. Nf3 is not an obligation (I play 2. Bc4) and in lines that seem natural, up to advanced players, can give white an positional edge. Also, it isn't much of a gambit unless they play the jaenich? Variation, I think it is called. But it is rather weak and positional bad for black later in the game

Vienna is a more broad opening, which covers all sorts of playing styles. It predominantly suits those players who first want to build their position before starting to attack.

The King's Gambit, on the other hand, is an extremely wild version. It is what we call romantic chess due to the period in the 19th century it was played in, popularised by the likes of Adolf Andersen and several other strong grandmasters.

I would argue Vienna is easily drawish but the King's Gambit is too wild and risky. It is deeply theoretical as a result of the opening being played for several centuries and so a well prepared opponent will be able to refute it.

The King's Gambit as an opening is far more well known than the Vienna. Since the Vienna is much more obscure, I find it fun to play against people with it. It saves you from heavily theorised Italian and Spanish games and is quite dynamic.