The King's Gambit unsound?

Electric, no, that is not me.  I am okay tactically, and I can find some good things from time to time.  But I do enjoy the play I get from the KG.  White gets good comp for the pawn, and if Black wants to hold that pawn, he will have to hold tight for a few. 

Here is a 20-move mini I just played.  I don't particularly consider this a tactical work of art, but there are some basic tactical themes that are nicely used here.  Nothing extraordinary, but I am happy with it.

My point behind posting this game has less to do with the win, and more to do with the fluid way the ideas flow - I am open for suggestions.  BTW, I hate playing lines that are extremely muddy.  I prefer lines that are lucid and flow like water.  I think the White pieces definitely flow harmoniously in this game.

 Really? I thought it was the Ruy.

How do you find out which is the most tactically sound, anyway?

I don't like the Ruy - maybe the Ruy with Bxc6.  Personally, I think White gives Black too many counterchances with his "nonchalant" handling of the opening.  

I do like the Scotch - personally, I like the early ...Qf6 stuff.  Pfren, which do you prefer - Qd2 to handle the mate on f2, or Qf3?

Melvin, just now saw this.  Yes, White must be a bit careful to open too much in the opening (LOL), so Black's tempo loss is justified with a type of Falkbeer counterpunch on the "weakened" White pawns. 

Thank you AP!  I have played Bird's Opening for years, but my biggest bane of that opening is getting in e4 early.  Thus, venturing into KG territory.  I was amazed when I bought Korchnoi's KG book.  The pawn structures that arise are very similar to the ideas that come from From's Gambit in Bird's Opening.  The big difference?  The tempo issue.  In From's Gambit, White is working to construct the pawn stucture as a type of shield, as he seeks to hold his pawn.  For me, I think often giving back the pawn is the better route.  In the King's Gambit, these structures are achieved easier, as White is now the one who has given up a tempo :-)  I often get my tempo back with Bxf4.  I am totally cool with playing this move.  Some others may like to play something different and let that pawn sit pretty, but I like the play I got out of this style of KG.  

BTW, what did you think about Qe2 and 0-0-0?  Would you have pushed your pawns earlier?

That is a bit of a mystery...

I'm a club player, not an IM. The guys I play would probably have enjoyed living 150 years ago. The Scotch is certainly a tough nut to crack.

The half-open f-file is a large part of the compensation, as is lingering structural weakness on the Black side if Black opts to keep the pawn. These aren't small things. White's "structural weakness" (I wouldn't call it that) is often short-lived, while Black's often carries into the endgame.

I have never lost a King's Gambit (as White) in correspondence play. I've drawn twice, once against the Falkbeer (this opponent was later tagged for cheating here) and once against the Fischer.

The King gambit is one of my favorite beside the king open.

AP, thanks!  I can take a look at that.  I don't normally like to keep my king and queen in line too long :-), so that is why I played 0-0-0.  Plus, it allowed me to play good development while I waited to see where his king went.  But I guess 10. e5 was maybe more to the point...

Moving the f pawn on the second move causes only  short term weakness for white, while black's weaknesses endure into the end game. With such obvious advantages, it's no wonder this opening is so frequently seen at the GM level.

I didn't say the KGA was unsound, only that you incur a weakness on  move 2. I said that people who like tactical games like the opening - which is my experience - and I'm told that it's a highly technical opening and that I need to move away from my pre-Stienitz thought processes.

I've obviously poked a hornet's nest with a stick here. I think I'll go pick a fight with some Evan's Gambit Players

Melvin, I wouldn't say that.  I think 1. e4 e5 2. f4 Nc6 3. Nf3 f5!? is a very respected way to handle the Black pieces.  I think that is how Miles used to play it. 

White still has to prove something, of course, it's not like Black has an epiphany on move 6, mutters "Alekhine next time", and resigns :). But while the KG argument continues, it pales in comparison to the Latvian Gambit ravings here on chess.com.

http://www.chessville.com/UCO/FromNeoFromtoKingsGambit.htm

This website discusses the 3...f5 approach, but it also discusses some Neo-From's Gambit lines.  I find it interesting - the Neo-From (guess I didn't know much about it) is the line my phone chess comp likes to play against me.  Here is the basic setup it is discussing:

I know that Chessville is recommending a different handling of the position than me, but I have faced this Neo-From a few times, and I found 4. h3 a good move for White!

Now, back to the King's Gambit 3...f5 - this is called the Adelaide Counter Gambit.  It would be good to discuss how to handle such a line from the White side.  Any takers? 

eek...

Bird Brain, d4? is clearly a mistake after dxe5! when white either loses a pawn or the right to castle, and black plays h6, Bf5 and 0-0-0, getting an hefty advantage.

As for f5, interesting....

I want to post this game.  It is an unfinished live game I won on time.  We were only 16 moves into the game, and he played a peculiar King's Gambit defense with ...Qf6.  This of course provokes White to play for Nc3-d5 with an aggressive opening position.  The first couple of times we tried it, I took on e5 with my f-pawn early, provoking Nxe5 and allowing him to play into a queen trade on f3, with gxf3, where I could enter a queenless middlegame with a strong pawn structure (c3-d4-e4-f3) and two bishops, plus a half-open g-file for attack.  I blundered the 2nd time I tried this idea - castled into a pin that lost me a piece.  This time, I decided to continue with development and allow him to take the pawn, knowing that Nd5 also allows me to play for Bxf4 and nice threats on c7.  Hope you enjoy the game!

3 ...Qf6 is a bad move. You're  exposing the Q to attack before you have any real prospect of using it to your advantage. After 4.Nc3, the only way to prevent 5.Nd5 with double threat is Nge7, which slows development of your king's bishop and delays your option to castle king side.

Once you've played Nd5, the Q can go to d6 or d8 to protect c7. d8 is better because it doesn't prevent the d pawn from developing, ane the Q is safer. Now black has moved the Q twice, and it hasn't accomplished anything.

You prosecuted the contest nicely, I just don't think the early queen move is the way to go here. 

Pfren, I have also faced that variation too.  I believe White can still apply the typical themes, such as Nf3 and Nc3 (to defend e4) and go for d4.  Would you agree that even in the Norwalder that White still has good comp in the form of early development?

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1079063

This guy plays 3. Nc3 and definitely is willing to sack material for the win - Black resigns in 20 moves.  Pfren, I would be curious to your ideas on White's ideas here.