Muzio's gambit - a failure

 This is a game where I tried the funky muzio gambit, my second game or so playing the king's gambit basically what I'd like is to know how I should have conducted the attack, and if my analysis might hit something... would 8.Qh5 have been the right continuation? Thoughts?

Since the big pawn center is one of the only things white has going for him here, 8. c3 is logical because it keeps the center intact.  You're still losing, but not as badly as after some other moves, including 8. e5 because it opens the a7-g1 diagonal.

Just because a move doesn't attack something, that doesn't make it "passive" unless it really does little for the position.  Here this isn't the case. 

farrellr, check it out with a chess engine and see what result you get.

The line can be good for over the board play, but here on the internet, players have more time to analyse and find the correct refutation. For internet play, I'd recommend 5.h4. Play could continue 5...g4 6.Ng5 Nh6 7.d4 f6 8.Bxf4 fxg5 9.Bxg5.

This looks a bit more promising than the position in your game.

So you say that even if c3 were objectively the best move, White should play something else?

8. c3 is a patzer's play

This kind of labeling doesn't help analyze the position, nor is it an argument.  Moreover, it's a rare case that the second best move is also a patzer's play.

The difference is between a double-edged position where a single slip by black will lose, and a static position where white is a piece down for a pawn with no other compensation.

This has to be a gross exaggeration.  White is already a piece down with little compensation just by playing the Muzio in the first place.  I also don't think the position can be called static after c3 because the White center is mobile.  Let's face it, the real bad move by White was Nd2.

I should also add that with c3, White can win back the f4 pawn, and only be 1 pawn down in terms of point value.

Most of the comments here have been pretty astute, I think. The Muzio, while not really refuted, has lost much of it's punch in this age of computers where defensive lines seem to appear magically out of nowhere. But it's quite a playable and exciting opening, and one I'd never hesitate to play. For one thing, it's instructive ... white gives up a full piece (two pieces in the Double Muzio) for tempo, development and an attack. Once you have invested that material, you crossed the Rubicon. You can not back down for a single move.  You almost came through in this game, but you hesitated. I suggest you arrange to play several Muzio's against this same player who seems pretty good. You may never play another one after, but you will learn so much in the process.

Here is one of the greatest Muzio's of all time in which Geza Maroczy defeats a Muzio expert as his own game. Note how Maroczy hold's his ground.

The Muzio is rare nowadays, but here is a 1990 game where Shirov wins brilliantly.  Of course, one must be tempermentally suited to play such an opening; it's not for everyone.

When one thinks of the King's Gambit, especially the Muzio variation, possibly the last name that would come to mind would be Anatoly Karpov.

Well, readjust your preconceptions - here is Karpov, not playing a blitz game, but just the opposite, a correspondence game employing the Muzio.

interesting i think i will try this opening. aswell as the double sacrifice knight and bishop very sharp tactical games you gotta be super agressive tho..

The Muzio Gambit is quite wild and not seen very often nowadays, but can be fun to try sometimes. Most analysis suggests that the position after Qxf3 is a draw with best play, but further experience in the gambit is needed.

The move Qf6 for Black can really slow down the attack, but if White plays energetically and with nothing holding him back, he can pull off some nice combinations.

move 8. instead of c3 best was Bxf4

the muzio and double muzio is best played by relentless attackers with good tactical precision. i throw gambits alot as black too.

englund vs d4 scandinavian vs e4