Queens gambit or kings gambit

Which is better queens gambit or kings gambit?

My opinion is queens gambit

They are both very old openings with a good reputation. At your level and mine, either of these openings are playable as is virtually any other mainstream opening.

If you have to ask the answer is probably irrelevant. There is no "one size fits all" answer here. The QG is safer since unlike the KG it's really not a gambit at all, since Black can't hold on to the pawn without losing material or practically losing the game right out of the opening. BUT, not everyone equates "safer" with "better." 

My opinion is you should stick to Double KP openings as White and Black whenever possible for now, as these often lead to open games which should be learned prior to learning semi-open games such as QGD. 

Theoretically the queens gambit is better.

But theory is irrelevant at our level.

I will choose the Q Gambit. Pushing forward the f pawn just seems plain fightening at the start of any game for me. I think I need to play through some old master games where the move actually worked.

There must be some. I just havent seen any yet.

I don't agree with this totally, but "...one is inevitably reminded of the story of the player who was asked by a friend how he had managed to win a position that was a "book draw." The player replied "What good is the book when you don't know it and your opponent doesn't play it?" - GM Fine, from Basic Chess Endings 

Queens gambit all the way, I never play kings gambit.

Totaly Queens gambit max

And dont take kings gambit or queens gambit too seriously

Whidhl

You cannot really compare them, they are totally different openings.

Theoretically theory is better!

It is often (perhaps "always") said, that the Queen's Gambit is not a "true" gambit, because black cannot/should not hang onto the pawn. Let us look at gambits logically.

Webster defines gambit as "A chess opening in which a player risks one or more minor pieces to gain an advantage in position. Let us broaden that to read simply "... gain an advantage." It is generally agreed that in chess, there are three types of advantage: material, positional and temporal.

If the advantage gained is material, that is, winning a piece, we must assume that such an opening is not a "true" gambit, since merely regaining one's pawn disqualifies the Queen's Gambit. So scratch all gambits that ultimately win any material.

Let us next consider a positional advantage. Of what use is that? Well, logically, a superior position allows one to attack the enemy in such a way as to increase the advantage and/or ultimately win the game. How does one increase the advantage? One way is to win material. Not a gambit. Scratch that. Of course, winning the game is far better than merely winning a piece, consequently, we must also eliminate those openings as well. Not "true" gambits.

That leaves temporal advantages, usually referred to as a lead in development or having the initiative. This is considered potentially the most fleeting type of advantage, and one seeks to convert such an advantage into either a positional or material advantage. Let's assume one manages that. Oops. By definition, not a "true" gambit either.

What can we conclude from this? Either the only "true" gambits lose material and ultimately the game; OR --- the Queen's Gambit IS a gambit. In fact, since it can obtain a strong position AND regain at least the pawn, it may be the best gambit.

Kimgs gambit leads to more complicated positions, against a weaker or same level opponent It will work great, my personal favorite white opening