The King's Gambit unsound?

 1 e4 e5 2 f4 ef 3 Nf3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 Ne5 h5 6 Bc4 Rh7.

Used to see that a lot, when I was a nipper. The Long Whip Variation.

Andy, don't remember much about it, but I remember Korchnoi was not favorable about that ...h5 variation - cannot remember the name.  But he posted a pretty brutal beating for Black in that variation.  How does it treat you? 

"By what right does White, in an absolutely even position, such as after move one, when both sides have advanced 1. e4, 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 !"  -  on the King's Gambit - Emanuel Lasker

Oddly enough, Lasker could sometimes approach Tarrasch in the field of petty dogmatism.

I've never actually played it as White.  Played it twice online as Black (blitz games).  The main line runs (I mean, this I learned from dozens of games in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games...so many that I ended up getting it memorized!):  7 d4 d6 8 Nd3 f3 9 gf Be7 10 Be3 Bxh4+ 11 Kd2.  But both my opponents instantly took on f7.

Melvin, it reeks of Steinitz!  Of course, both Bronstein and Fischer preferred Bc4 allowing Qh4+ - most players won't play Qh4, as the tempo isn't worth the counterplay White gains from it.  But Ke2 is very Steinitz. 

Lasker also said that if the Sicilian was a good opening, then the English should be better because it's the Sicilian with an extra tempo. He noted that the English is nowhere near as popular as the Sicilian. I find the statement a little misleading, and I wonder what Lasker's motive for saying it was. The obvious difference is that when you play c5, white has already staked his claim in the center with e4. When white plays c4, black has many valid responses. Lasker was either being dogmatic, or he had an agenda.

EP, back then, the English was not a popular opening.  Morphy had a disdain for it.  Also, the Sicilian didn't have the best rap either - it has became a more popular opening as of late.  Lasker was speaking some very wise words, much ahead of his time.  I can agree with him. I used to laugh at all the posts about how terrible the Dutch Defense was, knowing I played it for years with decent results.  What really pulled my chain was that about 50 years ago, two champs (Botvinnik and Bronstein) tried it in their WC match.  Then, suddenly Nakamura lit the Leningrad Dutch torch and...well, people gained respect for it.  The Berlin defense to the Ruy used to be considered terrible.  Well...now, not so much.  How about the Scotch?

Openings go through cycles, but the truth is always the truth. 

Melvin, Steinitz also said that the king is a fighting piece.  Granted, the king could go to f2, but why not e3 or d3?  Let's get fighting!  ;-)

In the complicated KG, it seems like it's difficult to find a clear-cut continuation that gives black some indubitable advantage. White's play is usually enough for equality, but not more. Sometimes it's asking a bit too much to be able to mate your opponent in 20 moves every game.

Elubas, I never play the KG with that type of attitude.  I guess that is why some people are disappointed with it.  As someone else said, we are not obliged to accept sacs anymore!  That being said, White does get some nice central control and open lines for his pieces - that is one thing I like about it.  Plus, I love pushing the f-pawn early, and one of my biggest gripes with Bird's Opening is not getting in e4 quick enough. So, KG it is!

BirdBrain, it's not a negative attitude at all to admit that you're not always going to get a quick kill! Remember that no winning position is reached without the help of your opponent

I do get quick kills THANKs to my opponents  But even if there is no quick kill, I like the positions I get

I think my last sentence in post 101 turned out to sound more blunt than I intended it to. I'm not criticizing the KG at all; I was trying to say that the King's Gambit is complex, but equal.

Elubas, nah...I think you are thinking I am taking it that way ;-)  It's okay, we know the KG rules!

I knew the English wasn't popular until relatively recently, did not realise the Sicilian was held in low regard. However, wouldn't you say that move order creates a fundamental diference between the two openings? 1. c4 e5 variants of the English are similar to the Sicilian. 1. c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.g3 Bb4, for example, has more in common with a Nimzo-Indian than a reversed Sicilian. I suppose that if I'm going to get all whiney and pedantic, I should look up the quote and the context in which it was made.

Here's a quote from Philidor, from Wikipedia:

The great French player and theoretician André Danican Philidoropined of the Sicilian in 1777, "This way of opening the game ... is absolutely defensive, and very far from being the best ... but it is a very good one to try the strength of an adversary with whose skill you are unacquainted."^[11]

The modern treatment is what gave the Sicilian a new edge.  It is still defensive, in a way - Black tries to absorb White's blows, all the while countering on the queenside.  It is totally double-edged. 

The King's Gambit -  King's Gambit Accepted, King's Gambit Declined, King's Gambit: Bishop's Gambit, King's Gambit:Knight's Gambit...all sound openings. Any more KG openings to place on the "sound" list?

Pfren, here is the link to the discussion.  http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1308194168

No, he never mentioned it.  I have seen a different game like that before.  However, it is different, being 1. e4 e6 2. d4 g5, while mine is only after 2. Nf3.  He showed one game on ICC, I believe, or playchess that had used maybe the same idea, or close, but he said since I am a legit person, then I get the right to name the opening after myself.  

I still got a ton of flack over this opening :-)

TheUltimateChampion, I totally agree.  That is the same thing that Korchnoi said - that the King's Gambit got a fresh look, and people were treating it as a positional opening.  I suppose, just like in the Open Catalan, there are some setups where White forgets his c-pawn, and he uses that tempo to get some heavy piece action! 

Pfren (and anyone else interested in info on 2...Qf6, the Norwalder variation...

Here is my reply from Buecker on chesspub.com about this opening:

Yes, it was a monography on 2...Qf6. The pamphlet in German appeared in two editions: the first was a single booklet, the second consisted of two booklets. The third edition was the (much improved, about 96 pages) book published by Franckh-Kosmos, the Stuttgart publisher. That book also appeared in a translated edition (Dutch). The correct title is "Die Nordwalder Variante". In his "Unorthodox Openings" Eric Schiller left away the first "d" and made it "Norwalde". The little village Nordwalde was the place where I lived for 50 years. There was analysis in Kaissiber which seemed to give White an advantage, starting with 3.Nc3 Qxf4 4.d4 Qh4+ 5.g3 and so on.

http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1324958208/0#3

I was VERY interested to hear about this early g3.  I was just studying a KBG line with g3 in it last night...some very exciting stuff!  I hope you guys enjoy!