1. e4 e5  2. f4 Nc6 and now, at least for Bishop's Gambit players, I would advocate 3. Bc4 (3...exf4  4. d4, which can also arise from 2...fxe4  3. Bc4 Nc6  4. d4,  offers White sufficient compensation).

Tricky idea you ran into! And thanks for sharing it, which may save me a point should I ever run into this!

White should probably prefer 7.Be2 Nxe2 8.Qxe2 d6 9.Ng4 Nxg4 (9...Bxf5 10.Qb5+) 10.Qxg4 += (does anyone know if Burgess mentions this?)

After 4.exf5 e4, is there possibly anything in 5.Ng5!?

Regards, 
Craig 

Hallo Paul and slangevar!
There have been some contributions to your discussion in german sources a few years ago. In his 1996 german magazine "Kaissiber" Stefan Buecker analyses the Miles-Variation (line b in Paul´s reply) and line c as following:

line b: Instead of 8. d4 he gives

8. Bc4 Qxe5 9, Bxg8 g6 [ 9. - Rxg8 ? 10. Qxh7 Qd5 11. Nc3 Qf7 12. Ne4 +-] 10. Qh3 ! Rxg8 11. Qxh7 Rh8 12. Qxg6 d5 13. Rf1 Rxh2 14. Nc3 c6 15. d4 [ 15. Ne2 !? ]exd3 + 16. Kd1 dxc2 + 17. Kxc2 Bd7 18. Bd2 Be8 19. Qg4 Bh5 20. Qg5 + Be7 [ 20. - Qe7 21. Qg3 Qh7 22. Bf4 ! +- ] 21. Qg8 Be8  22. f6 ! Bf6 23. Rae1 with a clear advantage for white

line c: Buecker´s improvement for white is:
6. Nc3 Bd6 7. d4 Bb4 8. Be2 Nd5 9. Bc4 ! Qh4 [ 9. - Nxc3 ? 10. Qh5 + Ke7 11. Qf7 + Kd6 12. bxc3 Bxc3 + 13. Kd1 Qf8 14. Ba3 + Nb4 15. Qd5 + Ke7 16. Qxe4 + - ]10. g3 Nxc3 11. bxc3 Bxc3 + 12. Bd2 Bxd2 + 13. Qxd2 Qf6 14. Bf7 + Kf8 15. Bd5 Qxf5 16. 00 d6 17. g4 Qf6 18. Nxc6 bxc6 19. Bxc6 Rb8 20. f5 +=

In his 1998 bilingual (english/german) book " The king´s gambit for the creative aggressor " Thomas Johansson adds to this analysis:

18. Bxe4 or 18. Rab1 may be even better and:

14. Qe3 ! seems even stronger, e.g. Qxf5 15. Bd5 ! Nxe5 16. fxe5 Rf8 17. Bxe4

He also gives in Paul´s line a:
4. exf5 exf4 5. d4 d5 6. Bd3 Qe7 [ 6. - Bd6 7. 00 Qf6 8. Nc3 Nge7 9. Ne2 += ] 7. Kf2 Nf6 8. Nc3 Ng4 9. Kf1 +=
as possible improvement for white.

I hope this is a little help for you. At least the positions in line a aren´t that boring anymore.

Hello Paul and thanks for your analysis. The Wahls article can be found in New In Chess 38:

1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 3.Nf3 f5 4.ef5 e4 

(4...ef4 "clearly lacks ambition. It will probably lead to a slight advantage for White" - Wahls. His analysis runs 5.d4 d5 6.Bf4 Bf5 7.Bd3! Bd3 8.Qd3 Bd6 9.Bd6 Qd6 10.0-0 0-0-0 11.Ng5! Nh6 12.c3 Rde8 13. Nd2 Qe7 14 Ndf3 Qe2 15. Qb1)

5.Ne5 Nf6

(after 5...Ne5 "Black's position turns out to be amazingly viable" but his main line follows Gallagher-Wohl. He does not mention your 13. Re1 which may well be an improvement.)

6.d3

(Wahl gives the ! symbol to 6.Nc3 and 6.Bc4 but his very detailed anaysis does not seem to lead to advantage for White in either case though there are many unclear lines.)

6...Qe7 7.d4 d6 8.Nc6 bc6 9.g4

(He does not mention 9.c4. Instead 9.Be2 is given as leading to equality.)

9...h5 10 g5 Nd5 =+ 11c4 Nb4/Nb6.



BTW his main line runs 6.Nc3 Bd6 7.d4 Bb4 ("shows mental flexibility") 8.Be2 Nd5! 9.Bh5 Kf8 10.Nf7 Qf6 


("unclear. For example: 11.Nh8 Nc3 12.bc3 Bc3 13.Bd2 Ba1 14.Qa1 Qh4 15.g3 Qh5 16.d5 e3 17.Bc3 Qf3 18.Rf1 Qd5 19.Bg7 Kg8 20.Bc3 Qf5 when Black is given as clearly better.)

I have also found this line to be annoying, especially in fast games when White seems to be on the receiving end of the gambit rather than offering it.

oes anyone have thoughts on the best way forward for White after. !.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 3.Nf3 f5!?
GM Wahls wrote an article in NIC a few years ago arguing that the line is good for Black...it's even titled
"King's Gambit Finally Refuted"