Convenient how you continue to define "unsound" in terms of a 3600+ computer. Also, Judith Polgar became the youngest GM in history playing the KG as one of her main tools. I already said it doesn't do great with GMs.
Define "lower levels". The screen shot below is for players 2000-2500 after move 1. Notice that the third choice, f4 (the king's gambit) wins just 1% less than Nf3 (which can be anything), and a bit worse than the Vienna.
Don't believe me? Go check yourself.
#21
Win percentage correlates with rating difference, not with opening. If a GM plays some gambit against a lesser player, then the GM is likely to win despite the objective unsoundness of the gambit. A bad opening is good to avoid preparations and drawing lines. Lasker called this "odds style" (Vorgabestil).
What on earth are you talking about? That is not an argument. The matchmaking system pairs players similarly rated. OF COURSE these games are played amongst players of similar levels.
#21
Win percentage correlates with rating difference, not with opening. If a GM plays some gambit against a lesser player, then the GM is likely to win despite the objective unsoundness of the gambit. A bad opening is good to avoid preparations and drawing lines. Lasker called this "odds style" (Vorgabestil).
LOL...its blitz. I played black a few times and black had a nice position immediately. Did white resign? Nope.
#24
At lower levels and in fast time controls openings do not matter. King's Gambit, Latvian Gambit, Elephant Gambit, Danish Gambit, Englund Gambit, Chigorin, Dutch, Alekhine Defence, Bongcloud... anything goes. However, against stronger players and in longer time controls most of these no longer go.
Your own #22 demonstrates that white relinquishes his first move advantage with the King's Gambit. At higher levels and longer time controls even more so. 2 Nf3 objectively is much stronger than 2 f4.
King's Gambit has been played by Bronstein, Spassky, Fischer, Polgar, Ivanchuk, Short, mostly for the surprise effect or to get the opponent out of his prepared lines.
As a beginner,It is better to learn and familiarise with the kings pawn and queens pawn opening.If u are really interested in kings Gambit,I recommend studying game sof Paul Morthy,Youtube really helps a lot
I think I spell wrong
If you want to play kings gambit you before need to be sure that you understand what basic principle chess is. Kings gambit is an agressive- romantic option and it includes in the beginning a sacrifice. In your level you dont have to do that because you dont even know what basic chess is. Just play with a low level of intuition and try to make an small amount of puzzles. With time you will reach 600-700 and then you will try to learn a basic opening to reach 1000. In that moment you can try doing that.
If you want to play kings gambit you before need to be sure that you understand what basic principle chess is. Kings gambit is an agressive- romantic option and it includes in the beginning a sacrifice. In your level you dont have to do that because you dont even know what basic chess is. Just play with a low level of intuition and try to make an small amount of puzzles. With time you will reach 600-700 and then you will try to learn a basic opening to reach 1000. In that moment you can try doing that.
Everything depends on what you want to achieve. There's no rule saying you can't play a certain opening until a certain level. In fact, the King's gambit gets taught to quite a few young kids as well, as it's an exciting opening. Usually you'll get back the pawn and have a nice position. Just remember to play 3. Nf3 (to prevent Qh4+). If you're still trying to learn about tactics and combinations, I'd guess the King's gambit is actually quite nice to play for fun for a while. Don't study opening lines though!
If you are looking for an opening to improve rapidly, I'd suggest opening 1. d4 and the queen's gambit. It's safer than the King's gambit and there's a lot more strategical chess to be played. You'll learn more about where to put your pieces and how to plan, while still needing to be aware of tactics. 1. e4 is of course a good opening too, but to play it well you need to know so much more about dynamic chess (like the initiative mentioned above, something even 2000 players struggle with most of the time) and dynamic chess can only be played well with a strong understanding of more static principles in chess. That's why I've always taught my pupils to start out with 1. d4 and then to switch back to 1. e4 after gaining a solid experience with 1. d4.
Nope e4 e5 f4 eXf4 Bc4 is perfectly fine for white
#18
An opening that wins more for black than for white is unsound.
"I would like to play the King's Gambit, but I have yo find a way to equalise for white" - Kramnik
It is OK to play bad openings at lower levels and in fast time controls.