How NOT to respond to the King's Gambit!

 So your play in positions which you are not comfortable playing does not indicate you playing strength? 

I would say the opposite

Let me weigh in with a quote from GM David Bronstein:

"It is more dangerous for Black to play the King's Indian than it is for White to play King's Gambit."

I trust Bronstein's judgement here.  Nobody says that the KID is a poor choice of opening, so to me, KG is an acceptable line.  The Qh4+ defense by Black is just another way of playing the Black pieces here, and it is neither weak nor stupid.  I think that there are better lines for Black in the KG, but this could be a game-time decision by Black, counting on (hoping on?) White's inability to find the right line.  And while moving the Q several times in the opening is not regarded as "proper play," I am reminded of another quote, this time by Alekhine.  When Alekhine won a game in which he moved his Q 6(!) times in the first 12 moves, an amatuer ssaid to him, "But Grandmaster, the books say that that is bad chess."  To which Alekhine replied, "The books say?!?  I write the books!"  Moral of the story--GMs do what works for them; you should do what works for you. 

I wouldn't be playing my best if I overall don't understand the position. I could know so many things about chess but be completely confused because there are some features I have never seen before. Just because I play that position badly doesn't mean I'm so bad.

 That means you don't have a book thinking for you.  To me that is when your true skill shows. 

I rarely use the book, although I don't really know what you were saying in that post. It's hard to explain what means playing your true strength. You might have a different definition of it. All I'm saying is that if I played a bad move in say the king's gambit, perhaps a move out of book which happens to be a blunder, that doesn't necessarily indicate I have a low rating. Well, often these moves in a theoretical variation while playing are so hard to find that you need to be a titled player to have a decent chance of finding it. By losing in this way by a blunder simply means that I didn't study the lines but there should not be a true guess of rating because a reasonable guess would be a person who didn't know this opening rated about anywhere below 2200. Some sharp positions are really that hard.

Well here's another example of why 2. ... Qh4+ may NOT be the best response to the king's gambit.

As my latest win here exmeplifies, the King's Gambit

An example of how the so called 'weakened' kingside pawn structure of white is overcome with the compensation of quick development:

after 3 d4, I'm pretty sure you're supposed to play ...Qh4+ immediately. Unlike 3 Bc4, white doesn't get enough compensation for moving his king. The move 1 e4 e5 2 f4 Qh4+ is obviously only playable if you know waht you're doing. Black in the tarius games played like a complete idiot in those games and gave white a very strong advantage out of the opening. This is because he didn't know the subtle ideas of ...Qe7 and responding to fxe5 with ...d6 I believe. Still though, white gets a slight edge instead of clear disadvantage after ...Qh4+ instead of ...exf4. The main good thing about ...Qh4+ followed by ...Qe7 is that the position is fairly quiet for a KG and white made the g3 move.

In response to the last posts, actually as white, I never play 3. d4 - instead I always play Nf3 instead which prevents Qh4+ .  The ONLY thing I can say to the credit of 2. ... Qh4+ is that Qh4+ in general is the MAIN attack that I try to take away from my oponent when I play the KG. I've heard it said before that Nf3 is too slow, but I find that the protetion it offers is more than compensation enough later as I develop strong attacks.

I think Nf3 is considered best and main line, it's just that 3. Bc4 is even more aggressive.

Technically, The King's Gambit is slightly unsound. it weakens the kingside, does hardly anything for White's development, and wedges a pawn on f4 that White will find hard to eliminate. Most Grandmasters today prefer less speculative defences, and usually opt for the Ruy Lopez, Caro-Kann, Sicilian, or Pirc in the face of 1.e4 .

All that siad, it is playable; and White hasn't had negative percentages as of yet. However, it is much lower a score than other openings White could employ, and thus is not popular with upper-ended players.

This is a silly remark. Firstly, Black doesn't get to opt for the Ruy Lopez to avoid the King's Gambit, because it is White's choice to play 2.f4. Secondly, if they play openings like the Caro-Kann, Sicilian or Pirc, it's very unlikely that it is because of a fear of the King's Gambit. And thirdly, in the rest of your post you're talking about how the KG is dubious _for White_!

I have played a lot of kings gambit on both sides.  :)  I haven't tried a lot of KGD though so I see a lot of KGA.  Honestly, I think I would slightly prefer black in this line 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 d6 to free up the light bishop and protect the e5 square with h6 coming soon.  This moves a lot of pawns early but I don't think white has any good tactical blows yet.  White has the lead in development, but I think black can slowly catch up in development with carefull play.  That is my 2 cents.  :)

And he's absolutely right (Daniel 3). It is dubious. it will probably work for lower levels, but trust me, it's dubious. It's playable but not at GM level because they will know how to get an advantage with the black side.

Usually, White will NOT play the ludicrous 2.f4?! in the face of 1...e5 because good players know how to win the game easily with Black. The Black player does not play the Caro-Kann, for example, because he is afraid of the King's Gambit, but because he chooses to give his opponent a little bit of a chance to win. (I am a fervent zealot for the Black peices.)

Learning the King's Gambit and trying to master it IS dubious because all that time you invested into that opening will be squashed by the simple 1...c5 . Most good players employ only a few openings that they master, not just memorize, but master. The King's Gambit is merely a waste of any good players time, and I challenge you to find me a really good game on a GM level where White plays the King's Gambit and wins. There simply is none!

I got so fed up trying to beat the KG that I switched and almost exclusively face 1.e4 with the sisilian or when I need a lift, its the alekhine defence.

almost never meet 1.e4 with 1...e5

It would help your argument if you didn't overstate your case.

Boris Spassky used the King's Gambit a lot, and went on to become World Champion. Another king's gambit lover was David Bronstein (although he did play the Ruy Lopez more often, to be honest). He only missed the World Championship when Botvinnik beat him in the final game of their match, thus managing a tie. I picked a game where he beat Mikhail Tal, another World Champion.

Nigel Short was another World Champion contender. He played the KG a number of times. I'll add in a recent game, beating this year's Corus winner Karjakin.

Currently, the GM who uses it most is probably Fedorov, and Zvjaginsev has used it several times recently. I

Point made, Scarblac.  Game, set, and match.

That still doesn't make it sound. Plus you're only looking at the wins for white. There are just as many wins for black that you haven't looked at.

These games were played before a lot of modern analysis. Show me a modern game, then gloat.