Moving a Pawn Twice in the Opening

1) the Albin has been played by GMs at the highest level. To put it bluntly  your feelings on it are wrong , it is perfectly valid at our normal human level. If you feel this is the wrong evaluation then you need to challenge yourself and see why these very strong players played it. (hint: check out morozevich's games)  I did challenge this opening by playing the white side vs a team of very strong players. Their strongest player is now a GM and number 2 on the list of the top 50 players in ICCF Correspondence chess. However in addition to this one strong player the 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th player on the team were also strong.  I won by forcing the game into an endgame where I had a good Knight vs their not so good Bishop.

Because one GM has played an opening in the past does not mean it is a good opening.

2) the falkbeer is valid also, its not a winning line or a refutation of the KG but it is perfectly playable. White has difficulites in dealing with things and his advantage is the same as any other position in the opening. The Kings Gambit is a slightly inferior opening as I more or less proved when I did an exhibition on chess.com where chess engines were allowed and expected.  Black has good winning chances after 1. e4 e5

2. f4  exf4 3. Nf3  g5.  Also after the moves 1. e4 e5 2. f4  d5 Black equalizes.

equalizes is a step down from Black having good winning chances.  However after 1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd4  e4?! now the situation turns all the way from Black having good winning chances or Black equalizing to White having the better game.

3) I am pointing out that your idea that pushing pawns twice in the opening even if it attacks a piece (ie the Alekhines defense) is not always the best idea such as in the line I showed in the French where black pushes a pawn that also attacks a piece. 

I never said pushing a pawn in the opening if it attacks a piece is a bad idea. I am saying one has to be very careful about pushing a pawn in the opening twice. I even mentioned that it is fine to play  1. e4  Nf6  2. e5 which is a normal line vs the Alekhine.

I would suggested to challenge yourself more in the assumption that something is always bad or always good. In reality ,the best answer, is that it depends on the specifics of the position, one move can make a huge difference. You misquote me. I never said pushing a pawn twice in the openimg is  ALWAYS a bad idea and I gave examples when it was ok.

For example the reason that most beginning players do this is that it is a simple attack (it makes a concrete and immediate threat) the proper counter of this sort of attack is something players need to learn as well. So in this end your approach is a showing promise but I caution you on making broad based assumptions. I did not make broad base assumptions. I said one of the problems players rated under 1800 have is that they tend to move a pawn in the opening twice and I gave specific examples when it was wrong and specific examples when it was ok.

A similar strategical assumption is in the "old" idea that a big center (pawns on e4 and d4) was a "winning" advantage. This idea was challenged by players like Alekhine and Grunfeld that showed this was not always the case due to some very concrete situations (see appropriate defenses) where a large [underdefended] center that was also seen as a weakness. This is off the subject but I did show how a too advanced center could be wrong.

PS its also Falkbeer thank you. I did not spell the name correctly but it is still a bad gambit.

Please understand that ICCF and OTB chess are entirely different set of circumstances. ICCF [coorespondence chess] it is essentially a computer and research match so it boils down to who has more time to research lines with a computer. Here you under estimate what it takes to  become a top ICCF Correspondence player. There is more to it than that. In my two chess.com exhibitions where chess engines were used, I did not research any GM games.     This has zero relevence to who understands more about the game and the ideas in a position.   The strategies used in correspondence chess are very different than OTB chess which is what most people refer to in chess discussions. They are different in some ways and the same in other ways.

However, I am talking about players rated under 1800 in this forum and the fairly often mistakes they make when they tend to move a pawn twice in the opening without a very good reason. 

If your discussion is what is valid in a coorespondence game then thats a separate discussion. I would never play risky gambit lines in coorespondence games where a player can easily pull up a database and computer to navigate the lines. The discussion is about players under 1800 who often tend to move a pawn twice in the opening when they should not.  When I played correspondence chess and when I gave the two exhibitions on chess com, I never pulled up a database to navigate the lines, I did use a chess engine as they were allowed and my opponents used chess engines. [in the two chess.com exhibitions I used chess engines but never used a chess engine way back in the time I played correspondence chess]

Is the albin practical in correspondence chess? No. Is it practical in OTB chess? Very much so and proven time and time again.   sure OTB players can play inferior openings but in the long run they would do better to not play inferior openings.  But my theme is players under 1800 tend to move a pawn twice in the opening way too often and when they should not.

The same is true with the King's gambit. its a great surprise weapon and very practical (albiet a bit wild) at the OTB level.

OTB chess is what most people are referring to when they talk about things. 

Once again my point is that your trying to create broad based strokes that advancing a pawn is a bad idea. you again misquote me, my theme is players rated under 1800 often move a pawn twice in the opening when they should not.     My point is that its not always a bad idea and that in some situations is can be the most critical/challenging line to meet.  I did not say pushing a pawn twice in the opening is ALWAYS a bad idea and gave examples when it was not a bad idea.  While you gave examples the similarity in some of them to mainlines of other openings is not clear.     I totally understand your point but it would be a better post if you clarified your point with a few games that showed a very concrete difference not some abstract ideas like the KIA where there is still a lot of chess to play. I understand this theme is hard for many players to understand. If they  completely understood the idea of this forum they would not being making the same mistakes over and over again.  The idea is to think once, twice, and three times before you move the same pawn in the opening twice.  Learn when you should and when you should not.