That has nothing to do with what I asked.
King's Gambit Accepted: Bishop's Gambit line

Unless you're at that "higher level" I doubt it matters what you play.
I can remember a king's gambit tournament (King's Gambit Radom) that's played every year and one guy who was around 2600 played 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.d4 and never lost a game.

Unless you're at that "higher level" I doubt it matters what you play.
I can remember a king's gambit tournament (King's Gambit Radom) that's played every year and one guy who was around 2600 played 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.d4 and never lost a game.
I still like to play sound openings, whether my elo is 25 or 2500. Plus it most definitely matters for correspondence chess where resources on openings are allowed, regardless of rating.

I haven't bought John Shaw's tome on the KG yet, but I know that he seems to claim that 3.Bc4 is inferior to 3.Nf3 currently due to 3...Nc6. However, I remember reading somewhere (can't remember if it was here or at another chess site) that his analysis might have had holes and that some resources have been found within the Bishop's Gambit that keep it completely playable at a higher level. Does anyone have any information on this? I've been trying to incorporate the King's Gambit into my repertoire and I'm curious as to whether investing time into 3.Bc4 is just a waste of time and that I should take Shaw's recommendation and just play the King's Knight Gambit instead.
Thanks!
I've mostly played 2...d5 3 exd5 exf4 against the King's Gambit, so I haven't looked at the Bishop's Gambit much, but I'll take a stab at answering the question. I'm not sure whether it was so much his analysis having holes as a general disagreement over the evaluation of a certain position. One of Shaw's main lines runs as follows:
I think the trend's meant to have shifted to 3...Qh4+, although 3...Nc6 is certainly a challenge as well.
Thanks for posting, that resulting position wouldn't make me uncomfortable, if I'm playing the KG I'm totally ok with damaged pawn structures or losing the right to castle.

Shaw's 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Bc4 Nc6 4 d4 Nf6 5 Nc3 Bb4 6 Ne2 f3! 7 gxf3 d5 8 exd5 Nxd5 9 0-0 Nxc3 10 bxc3 Bd6 line was analysed on ChessPublishing a year or so ago. White was reckoned to be okay after 11. Qd2 and 12. Qg5 (Stefan Bücker). White doesn't have any advantage, but then White doesn't have any advantage in any lines of the King's Gambit, so no worries there

Just pick one of them. I would pick 3...d5 which is "instant equality", or even a bit more than that.
I agree with the first sentence for sure. 3...d5 is a particularly boring solution though. Not sure why anyone would pick that when there are so many other interesting lines to choose from.
I haven't bought John Shaw's tome on the KG yet, but I know that he seems to claim that 3.Bc4 is inferior to 3.Nf3 currently due to 3...Nc6. However, I remember reading somewhere (can't remember if it was here or at another chess site) that his analysis might have had holes and that some resources have been found within the Bishop's Gambit that keep it completely playable at a higher level. Does anyone have any information on this? I've been trying to incorporate the King's Gambit into my repertoire and I'm curious as to whether investing time into 3.Bc4 is just a waste of time and that I should take Shaw's recommendation and just play the King's Knight Gambit instead.
Thanks!