Learning 1.e4 e5 thoroughly

A great strategy: disappoint them before they disappoint you!

Actually, the Open had its heyday when Korchnoi was playing it in World Championships in the 1970s. That's also when Karpov busted on it, so its heyday coincided precisely with its decline.

Note: Why does autocorrect automatically make "its" into "it's" even when it's grammatically incorrect? Gugh!

I wasn't suggesting it worked. I was suggesting that he made it easy for you.

I didn't look too hard at your game but looking at it now, although I can see a vague point in 8 a4, in that it potentially opens the a-file, surely he should have actually opened the a-file before you played b4. I think he also should have played c3 and, as you say, 9.Bg5 looks really dubious. I used to quite like the system where white doesn't castle quickly and plays N -b1-d2-f1.

<<Why does autocorrect automatically make "its" into "it's" even when it's grammatically incorrect?>>

It was probably written by someone who doesn't understand grammar.

In that case there was no "best" and he should have resigned. Your opponent played badly and you took advantage of it nicely: I didn't see any chances for him in sacrificing his queen like that ... the moves you played seemed obvious and yet strong.

<<Mikhalevsky consider this move premature and gives some analysis with <<10.Bh4 g5 as good for black, During my past analysis I found move 10...b4 to be more tricky and challenging>>

I already don't like White's setup, which is too rigid. I agree ... b4 looks good and I can't understand why, since white played a4, he didn't follow up with ab, which seems to improve his pieces at no great cost. I also looked at ...g5 and I agree that seems fine for black. Bg5 was just wrong. But is there some reason why white doesn't play ab? He certainly managed to drift into a losing position very quickly. I agree that you had slight problems to face regarding king safety in the line you played but it doesn't seem as if you were in danger so long as you played correctly and your Q-side pawns always looked winning.

However, there's no way I would have played 19 Nxd4 if I wanted to try to save the game by maybe getting you to blunder. I think I would have gone 19. gf, after which there may be some complications. In particular, at least white gets some activity.

Andersson had it right, King's Gambit is excellent opening!

A photo of Reagan and a correct statement. That's rare!

Only move, in a way, since otherwise what's the point of a4?

What does the computer say about 19. gf? Looking at it very tiredly last night I became convinced that it's the only way for white to try to stay in the game. I thought there is no other move and that was the point of my initial criticism. It may be that it too is inadequate but I don't own a computer engine to check it and I haven't a board either.

1.Andersson typically opens with 1.Nf3 and heads for a Catalan or English as white.

2.The King's Gambit is an unnecessary weakening pawn move that is based off flawed, short sighted reasoning.  Why not simply 2.Nf3?  In many Ruy Lopez or Four Knights lines you'll be able to play f4 at a proper moment if play goes in that direction.

3.1.e4,e5 2.f4?!,d5! 3.dxe5,e4! makes the f-pawn a liability that keeps the queen's bishop and rook (after castling) restricted while the open king remains.  White can still have a decent game, just not the one he wants.  Besides doesn't white usually want more than equality in the opening? 

I dont understand why the kings gambit gets so little respect , I dont think anyone on chess.com would survive against it with a top GM that specialized in it ... like Spassky . The engines have everyone believing its bad and it may well be if 2 engines are playing but when its 2 people without engines its completely different . 

My understanding is that the KG is a highly positional opening that can be played for a win at any level.

<<Too lazy to go check engine now, gave one subvariation starting with 19.gxf6 in original post - white seems to start dropping pawns without any compensation and with passive rooks.>>

But in practice it seems the only decent try for white. I'll take a look at your post.

DolanDarkQuack

7 Nd5!?

If you play correspondence chess, you can't really play the King's Gambit anymore against a well-versed opponent. In correspondence, you don't need to be a GM to follow the critical variations. 

It wasn't the engines alone that defeated the King's Gambit, in fact the opening saw a resurgence in correspondence and elite chess circles even during the computer era until John Shaw published his work on the King's Gambit. Computers routinely over-value the pawn, even now.

Since John Shaw's book came out, it's suicide to play the King's Gambit in correspondence or at elite GM levels except as a surprise. 

But I agree, a GM could play almost any opening and beat non-masters. That doesn't say much about whether the opening is sound. It speaks to just how strong GMs are.

<<Since John Shaw's book came out, it's suicide to play the King's Gambit in correspondence or at elite GM levels except as a surprise.>>

You seem to be suggesting that the king's gambit loses for white, which I find hard to believe.

Aren't Nakamura and other GMs on Chess.com?  I don't think Spassky would stand a real chance against Nakamura (assuming we're talking about Spassky when he defeated Petrosian, which is when he seemed at his best) even with more traditional openings. 

Reti, Lasker, Fischer, and others criticized it before engines.