Learning Kings Gambit as A Beginner Ok or not?

I am a Beginner 
Started Playing Chess its about 1/1.5 Month I know The Very Basics(properly),Some Attacks Just need Suggestion On Learning Kings Gambit As a Beginner its ok or not?

Definitely ok, it taught me alot about chess for a while. 

Not OK. You will regret it later when you become stronger and you start losing with your pawn down. 2 Nf3 is so much stronger than the weakening and non developing pawn sacrifice 2 f4.

You only started playing less than 2 months ago. 

All you're playing is speed chess.

You're still losing in 4 moves.

Work on the basics before spending time on openings.

@tygxc - there is nothing wrong with the king's gambit. It loses exactly 1% more than the queen's gambit across all levels of play, and draws less, even for players rated 2000+. I'm sure Judith Polgar didn't regret it when she used it as her main weapon to become the youngest GM in history, or to beat Topalov in 26 moves right before he played Anand for the world championship.

I just don't think it's good for absolute beginners because of the reasons I listed above.

it is good if they accept it, but if they do d5 you can't get the position you want

at high levels it is not the best

maybe bullet

Everything depends on what you want to achieve. There's no rule saying you can't play a certain opening until a certain level. In fact, the King's gambit gets taught to quite a few young kids as well, as it's an exciting opening. Usually you'll get back the pawn and have a nice position. Just remember to play 3. Nf3 (to prevent Qh4+). If you're still trying to learn about tactics and combinations, I'd guess the King's gambit is actually quite nice to play for fun for a while. Don't study opening lines though!

If you are looking for an opening to improve rapidly, I'd suggest opening 1. d4 and the queen's gambit. It's safer than the King's gambit and there's a lot more strategical chess to be played. You'll learn more about where to put your pieces and how to plan, while still needing to be aware of tactics. 1. e4 is of course a good opening too, but to play it well you need to know so much more about dynamic chess (like the initiative mentioned above, something even 2000 players struggle with most of the time) and dynamic chess can only be played well with a strong understanding of more static principles in chess. That's why I've always taught my pupils to start out with 1. d4 and then to switch back to 1. e4 after gaining a solid experience with 1. d4. 

Toad. The reason why the kings gambit is not played at the highest levels is that it's almost always a draw, not because it loses. Even in the computer chess championships it's almost always a draw. There is no refutation. Also, by far, black should accept the gambit for the best winning chances. The Falkbeer countergambit is one of the most inferior responses to 2.f4 that black can choose. Believe me on this one, I know. I've studied the theory extensively for all major lines.

If one is so inclined, King's Gambit strikes me as a fine opening for beginners and class players. It exercises the tactical muscles, teaches king-side attacks, exposes one to insane positions, forces one to play hard a pawn down. Plus Black usually won't know the opening as well as White.

It's good to touch base with the older Wild West gambit play. It's part of our chess heritage.

IMO people make too big a deal about what a beginner plays. Just because one plays an opening for a while doesn't mean one is committed to it for life.

Horses for courses.

RAU4ever:

I'm intrigued by your 1.d4 suggestion for amateurs. You make a sensible argument without the dogmatism which often accompanies these discussions. It's an interesting alternative to the more frequent demand that beginners learn double king pawn first.

Imo just firmly understanding the concept of piece activity and what the best squares for the pieces are will serve you better in creating attacking chess than trying to learn the King's Gambit and artificially trying to manufacture attacks based off of incorrect instinct. 

You might play into the Muzio gambit thinking that you have a raging attack because someone else says you do, but do you really understand how the cumulated pressure with the Bishop on c4, its most active square, and the queen-rook battery all pressure the weak f7 square, even with a black pawn in the way?

Muzio gambit for reference

I hope I made that clear enough, my writing has been absolutely shambolic recently

If I were on your place I would consider openings like Ruy Lopez, Italian or Scotch, Vienna, Main line D4 openings. But not the King's Gambit. I am aware how wonderful opening it is but the problem is you are weakening your King too early in the game and King saftey is one of the most important thing you should consider in the opening. In King's Gambit you give up your King saftey for the powerful center. 

The tactical complications of the King's Gambit is really tough to keep up in a rapid/blitz game and a lot of opportunities King's Gambit offers us will just be overlooked and even if you try to turn on the engine and see what could you have done better, most likely you still won't get it.

In the end I would like to say that play an opening that you find interesting there is a chance you will love it. And if you love a opening continue playing it even if it contradicts general chess advice, in the end it's about playing chess and having fun.

Try out King's Gambit, if you like the position you are getting continue playing it. If you don't like the positions drop it. ( This was very simple ).

#13
It is unsound: see figure 4 (d)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf 

So let me get this straight, a chess engine that is rated probably more than 800 points higher than the best human, only draws 70% of the time playing itself, while winning 6% and losing 23% proves that the opening is unsound? Are you rated 3600+? Is anyone in the world? Especially when actual humans play, it scores over 50%? Really?

I said that the opening has never been refuted. Refuted means that in known lines, the opening loses by force. If the KG were refuted, AlphaZero would lose 100% of the time. I also said that in computer championships, it was almost always a draw, which is also true. The only thing that figure proves is that when played by AlphaZero, the opening is pretty bad.

If you tell a beginner that they shouldn't play this or that opening because a chess engine that would beat the world champion every single time thinks it's bad, you're not giving very good advice.

No for beginner gambits are not good

choose a normal line like italian and be a bit positional but solve tactics on book regularly (not solve on computer since it makes us think only our moves since computer playes opponents move)