Bishop Gambit in the King's gambit

Hello people,

was just curious to hear the perks of playing bishop c4 in the king's gambit, instead of the more wise move Nf3.

Fisher and other great players prefered the first line, but it just seems risky to me. Why? Because of queen h4 check and the king losing castling rights. Also, if you play Nf6, black is going to make most likely a passive move, which gives you the time to play bishop c4 anyway, only with a more comfortable position.

And still, I see people saying that they prefer white playing Nf6, as if it made it easier for them.

Can somebody explain why?

I probably play the Bishop's Gambit 90% of the time I play the King's Gambit.  Losing castling rights is not such a big deal, you just have to work a bit harder to activate your rook.  Black's Queen is ripe to be chased around in the Qh4 line so it is not generally the best response anyway as far as I am aware (I don't really follow opening theory, I just make my own way through!).

The whole point of the King's Gambit is quick development and an attacking game though so if you are worried about losing the right to castle it probably isn't the right opening for you to play anyway, irrespective of whether you go Nf3 or Bc4.

Your comments in this thread seem at odds with your other thread where you say playing the Queen out early seems to be "sheer stupidity"!  Why do you now suddenly think Qh4 here gives black such a good time and white a bad time?

Black can force you to lose castling rights after Nf3 too (in the Be7 lines,) it's usually not considered a good idea there either. In all of these positions you should be happy when Black wastes so much time. I've heard it said "if you don't like your King on f1 don't play the Kings Gambit." The best moves against the Bishop's Gambit were thought for a long time to be d5 and Nf6. The new "refutation" of the line is thought to be the move no one gave much attention to Nc6... with the idea that White now has nothing better than to transpose into the Hanstein which is bad. After Nf3 g5 Bc4 is also considered bad these days for the same reason, but h4 and Nc3 are still considered ok. When White plays the Bishop's Gambit s/he's hoping for 3... Qh4+. If it were a gaurantee the line would be much more popular.

Did white resign then?

um... 5. d4

you genious.. one thing is to play the queen out early cause you don't know any openings and you just reason like an amateur, another is to take advantage of a very risky position on your opponents side.

Noone of you was able to give me a reasonable reason of why the bishop gambit is prefered by some players. 

The fact that Fisher played it doesn't mean anything. Fisher was from another planet compaired to us. 

Checking with the Queen is not taking advantage of a risky position from White. The King is perfectly safe on f1. Glancing at chessbase after 3. Bc4 The most common move is 3... Nf6 scoring 49%. 3... Qh5+ on the other hand, the second most common move, scores 59%, not bad for White and risky for Black if anyone. Shaw's refutation move 3... Nc6 is payed much less often and scores 51%, not quite as good as Nf6 but not as bad as Qh5+. Maybe it will be played more often now he's published his analysis and if holds up maybe the score for Black will improve.

If being forced into Kf1 is so bad for White then it doesn't matter whether White plays Nf3 or Bc4.

Like I said, losing castling rights really isn't a big thing.  If it is then you don't play the King's Gambit because it is an opening for sharp attacking, not fussing over whether your King can castle or not.

Im a very aggressive player, so I really dont fuss about anything. And 9 games out of 10 with the kings gambit, I Win them. I think that in order to attack well you need to be sure that your king is safe, otherwise, with one move, your opponent can misbalance your attack and your entire position.

The fascinating kings gambit: a repertoire for the 21st century by Thomas Johansson is one of the few books I have seen dedicated to the Kings Bishop gambit, and it covers the queen check quite extensively. 

castled = safe, uncastled = unsafe is rather a massive simplification.

If you must have your king safely castled to attack -- an understandable concern -- the Bishop's Gambit isn't for you. From a safety point of view, the entire King's Gambit is dubious, compared to, say, the Evan's Gambit, because f4 compromises white's kingside period.

In any case, according to theory 3...Qh4+ is weaker than other black replies. No less a player than Kasparov has lost playing Qh4 against Short.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070668

I suspect the main perk of the Bishop's Gambit is that it is less analyzed than the Knight's Gambit and your opponent is less likely to be prepared for it, making it a good surprise weapon as in GM Shimanov's recent defeat of GM Kamsky (rated ~2760 at the time):

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1729231

There's also no getting around personal taste when it comes to opening variations -- even among grandmasters.

At the level of average players, games are usually won and lost on blunders, so the difference between the Bishop's and Knight's Gambit seems academic IMO.