How can we play king's gambit better

Just do it

There is a course by Simon Williams on this site. Watch It. I have played the King's Gambit since 1987 and it revolutionised my understanding of this opening. I thought I understood it well before. I didn't. Then buy John Shaw's 2013 Quality Chess book on the opening in question. The two between them will give you everything anyone would ever need to know on the topic.

Could you please tell more about King's Gambit?
What do you think about this opening?
Thank you.

@TurtleLearnChess If I could do that as well as, say, Jones or Shaw I would be making a living out of chess and would be about 600 Elo better than I am. I find the King's Gambit endlessly frustrating (some beautiful-looking attacking lines like the Wild Muzio don't quite work) and endlessly fascinating.

Let's start with if Black declines the gambit. After 2..., Bc5 White might be trying for positional pressure against e5 or to play f5 then attack on the K-side with a sort-of closed centre, but it might get very sharp because White will have trouble castling. And that's just one White approach (e.g. 3. Nf3, d6; 4. Nc3, Nf6; 5. Bc4, Nc6; 6. d3) but White can also look at 4. b4 hoping for compensation a bit like the Evans Gambit or 4. c3 staking all on an early d4 (will the centre be strong or weak?).

And that's just one maze based on just one way Black can decline the gambit. The "accepted" lines and 2..., d5 are even more of a maze.

Seriously. This is one opening which cannot be played off general principles and learning a few key lines, or from outline forum advice. Anyone playing it needs a very good book and at the moment "Shaw" is best imho. I read about and studied the KG intensely in my youth 1985-1997 then in a more desultory fashion 1998-2023 and now more thoroughly again, and I still get lost in it on a regular basis.

We can play with computer and learn best moves ♟️

@KillingMachine55 That will work to some extent, especially if you have something like Stockfish analysis running with it. Certainly it'll iron out any tactical blunders one might be tempted by. But it's still in long-term sacrificial positions that computer analysis doesn't always work well. As Graham Burgess so sagely puts it, "...in an excellent position from a gambit, the computer may be looking for ways to regain the Pawn and reach a tenable ending, simply not seeing the long-term attacking ideas it should be pursuing. In such cases you need to lead the analysis with a firmer hand" ('The Mammoth Book of Chess"; Robinson Publishing 2022, p. 433). And to "lead...with a firmer hand" one must first have understood the strategic ideas and thus actually know where the compensation lies for oneself. So I sort of half agree but half don't.

Thank you. RalphHayward.
It's great to hear from experienced player.

@TurtleLearnChess I'm glad that that was useful. I'll give one more example. If we look at the standard King's Knight's Gambit Kieseritsky position

(For anyone whose app won't load the demo board: 1. e4, e5; 2. f4, ef; 3. Nf3, g5; 4. h4, g4; 5.Ne5)

White now has three very different and all-very-complicated ideas if Black plays 5..., Nf6 (which is only one of several decent moves; alternatives include ..., Bg7, ..., d6 (currently very well-regarded), ...,Qe7 (ugly but it seems annoyingly effective), and maybe even ..., h5 with nineteenth-century type play).

White can try 6. Nxg4 leading to a flurry of piece play tactics, but it likely ends up dynamically equal-ish after 6..., Nxe4; 7. d3, Ng3; 8. Bxf4, Nxh1; 9. Qe2+, Qe7; 10. Nf6+, Kd8; 11. Bxc7+, Kxc7; 12. Nd5+, Kd8; 13. Nxe7, Bxe7; 14. Nc3 (a Stockfish improvement on 14. Qf4 which was played in Hebden-Littlewood, Hastings 1982-83 and which exposes the Queen whilst trying unsuccessfully to trap the Black Nh1). Pure tactics, end position positional, the winner will likely depend on whether or not the White player is better with a Queen than the Black player is with minor piece coordination.

White used to go for 6. d4 a lot with the idea of making the whole thing a long-term positional sacrifice. After 6..., d6; 7. Nd3, Nxe4; 8. Bxf4 White aims to exploit a backward Black f-pawn and potentially weak Black Pg4 and potentially weak Black K-side dark squares. Trouble is, it doesn't quite work. Look up Spassky-Fressinet (Paris 2001) agreed drawn in a position where Black seems better, and especially Fedorov-Ivanchuk (Wijk aan Zee 2001); very convincingly won by Ivanchuk.

So today White mainly plays 6. Bc4. After 6..., d5!; 7. ed, Bd6; 8. d4 a massively complex strategic and tactical fight is on. Whose King will be weaker? Will Black be able to win the Ph4 and if so will that leave exploitable pieces offside? If White plays O-O will he get mated? Could he tuck the King away on d1 awhile instead somehow? Can White chisel open the a2-g8 diagonal again somehow? Can White get active pieces to infiltrate behind Black's advanced Pawns? This line is a bit like the Karpov-Zaitsev Ruy Lopez in the sense there are masses of delicate choices to make and there's a fair body of theory to get on top of.

Just one more example of there being no one easy-to-learn set character to King's Gambit lines.

PS: I see my previous post was too long to fully open the text on the app (at least on my app). See the web-based version of the site if wanting to read the full mini-essay.

Nice