The King's Gambit unsound?

I love the KG(if you couldn't tell by my name), but a certain friend says that Chess computers/engines/whatever have shown that it's not good at all and that White is failing as soon as it's accepted. Is there like a way for me to show him otherwise?

Any recent Master games using the KGA?

I'm obviously going to continue playing the KG if he's right, but I kinda want to prove him wrong :p

If he is correct then don't play the KG against computers. It is still viable against people especially those of us less than Grandmasters (way less in my case).

The King's Gambit has been declared bust time and time again only to be played again and won with again.

Sure, maybe it's technically "unsound", but it's sound enough that even masters can play it with some success. You're not going to run into anyone who will be thinking "oh, 2. f4? I'm now -.64 after such-and-such 26 move sequence" who knows all the variations, unless you're a world-class GM.

Here's a recent game from this year where Kasparov loses a blitz match against Short in the KG:

Here's a few from this year. Merry Christmas: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?yearcomp=exactly&year=2011&playercomp=either&pid=&player=&pid2=&player2=&movescomp=exactly&moves=&opening=C33-C39&eco=&result=

Centaur game:

I don't think it's unsound at all.  I love to play the King's Gambit as one of my favorite openings and win with it a lot.  Even Boris Spassky used it a lot.

BUMP.

I don't want this thread to die.

Spread the KG love :3

I have noticed that openings that are very tactical are more often played in correspondence chess (snail mail version). The Latvian Gambit scores fairly often. Maybe it is so tactically complicated that it can't be played well O.T.B..

I have played the Latvian Gambit a couple of times OTB with success, but I felt that I was losing almost the entire game. It is a scary opening from both sides.

Today I played an interesting sideline (lost on time, but had a superior position before my blunder in time trouble) - cannot remember the name of the famous GM who advocated this line.  If you remember, please post:

meh its not dead but if it is im screwed. the king's gambit is my favorite opening. in fact its even my go to opening :s

Pfren, Keene!  I was trying to remember, even trying to tell my wife the name earlier.  This is the Keene Defense, and I believe they said 3...Qe7 was an improvement over the original 3...Qf6 (and I agree).  Pfren, what is your take on this idea?  I would like to hear your outlook on it.  I think, at my level, it is fully playable.  

Raymond Keene was a solid second tier GM who did win the English Championship and represented England in several Olympiads. Though IM phren is correct he is more famous for his organizing and his books.

I love the KG and would have to admit it's my favorite opening.  I don't think it's in the least unsound, but rather out of fashion.   I'm working right now on an article about the Muzio and in researching found an interesting statement by David Bronstein, a great KG player, in his book on the 1953 Zurich International Chess Tournament, explaining why the KG isn't popular in "modern" ('modern' even circa 1950s) tournaments: "after a short fight in the center, the pawn structure simplifies, and the fight which follows becomes flat and featureless." He was quick to point out that modern masters know how to sac a pawn and utilitize the ensuing imbalances, but that mostly in the current style of play, sacs are postponed and one's "combinative yearnings" kept hid "behind a mask of positional play."

Lasker called the KG mostly a trick when he wrote in his 1917 book Common Sense in Chess: "We must therefore come to the conclusion that the KB gambit is undound.  I will not pretend that there is any right and wrong in Chess from an ethical standpoint, but what right should White, in an absolutely even position, such as after move 1,  both sides have advanced  P-K4, sacrifice a Pawn, whose recapture is quite uncertain, and open up his kingside to attack? And then follow up this policy by leaving the check of the Black Queen open? None whatever !  The idea of the gambit, if it has any justification, can only be to allure Black into the too violent and hasty pursuit of his attack. If, therefore, we can obtain by sound and consistent play the superiority of position, common sense triumphs over trickery, and rightly so."

Unfortunately for Lasker, he lost one of the rare tournament KGA's he played as black:

Bronstein, on the other hand, felt that the lack of soundness of the KG was more rumor than fact: "Theory regards this opening as incorrect, but it is impossible to agree with this. Out of the five tournament games played by me with the King's Gambit, I have won all five."

Below, a very young Bronstein beats Koblents in the USSR championship with the KGA-

Reguardless of whether the KG is sound or not it is interesting and fun to play. In the arenas that I can compete the KG or almost any named opening is playable. My opponents (and I as well) will not know the theory and book moves. We will not play the optimal moves and we will have fun!

2.f4 gives up a pawn and saddles white with a permanent structural weakness in exchange for an extra tempo. Whether this makes it unsound or not, there are tactically inclined players around the world who love to play it. And once the gaunlet is thrown down when I have the black pieces, I'm happy to snatch it up! Theory is less of an issue for these players than using an opening that suits their disposition and their strengths. It's a battle to win by force in the opening!

electricpawn, for Black to hold the pawn, he must also make concessions.  White gains excellent central comp in exchange for Black trying to hold the pawn.  Also, the KG also has excellent positional ideas too - not just tactical.  

I read somewhere that chessplayers should learn chess as chess was learned. Starting with the "romantic openings" to learn the tactics and feel of open positions then move on to the "modern openings" to learn semi-open and closed positions. I do not know if this theory has any validity or not, b;ut it is an interesting idea.

Of course every opening has positional ideas. The people I know who play the KGA do so because they are good tactical players and like to play that kind of game. That's you, BirdBrain, isn't it?