For King's Gambit:
At master level all the lines are well known up there, so they will likely draw. At beginner level the plans are too sophisticated, imbalances too great, and too many principles broken in too many lines to be viable (e.g., making many pawn moves to hold the pawn or queen out early for black, and for white usually just moving the kingside pieces for the first few moves).
Below 1800 it doesn't matter which response you choose. The outcome will never be any different.
: )
Cheers!
probabley siclian against e4 the one i first used was the hyper-accelerated dragon which i found really fun at lower levels people often get flustered but at higher levels you should probabley go into something like the najdorf since the dragon can be countered
against d4 i suggest playing the queens indian defence or nimzo indian or maybe the mexican defence
not really sure about f4 since its not that common
Well. I think we're going to have to simply disagree. If you play moves that are objectively bad, but you hope they will work because your opponent isn't good enough, you are accomplishing two things: You are training yourself to play bad moves, and you are training yourself to play against weak opponents. Why would you want to do that?
I don't think it's quite that clear-cut. There are a number of openings that are perfectly good at the higher levels, but which require a certain amount of positional and tactical knowledge to play properly. These systems would be poor choices for under-1800s. Similarly, there are openings which are considered too straightforward for master play... too few prospects for gaining an opening advantage, against correct play... but which would give an under-1800 a clear position with a logical plan.