The line 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Nc3 g4 5.Ne5 Qh4+ 6.g3 fxg3 7.Qxg4 g2+ 8.Qxh4 gxh1(Q) is generally considered to be dodgy because of 9.Qh5 Nh6 (9...Be7 10.Nxf7 Nf6 11.Nd6+ is a forced mate) 10.d4 d6 (10...Bb4 11.Bxh6 Qxe4+ 12.Kd1 Qxd4+ 13.Ke2 wins, 10...d5 is pretty much the same as the main line)11.Bxh6 Be6 (11...dxe5 12.Qxe5+ Be6 13.Qxh8 is just good for white) 12.O-O-O when white clearly has tremendous compensation for the exchange.

Earlier in this thread I alluded to what I think is an improvement in the Quaade, namely 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Nc3 g4 5.Ne5 Qh4+ 6.g3 fxg3 7.Qxg4 Qxg4 8.Nxg4 d5 9.Ne3!?   

The games I played in the line are in the IECC archives, at the moment I dont have the time to trawl through them (my HDD databases have all become corrupted so my copy of the game is gone), but white seems to get plenty of chances in the lines arising. And when I do have more time I'll try to post some analysis. If, in the meantime, someone else wants to try and find the games, they finished within the last 3-4 months, it was an IECC Thematic Event, and my opponent was Pedro Canizares Cuadra. (If you are in the wrong archive, you may still find games of mine against him in the Rosentreter or Allgaier, which were also mentioned earlier)

After reading the article on the Pierce by Harding, I must admit I have no more faith in the line - white may well have a draw, but any winning attempts are far too risky, and since I play the KG "straight up" (not via a vienna move order), I've always preferred 4.d4 as recommended by Johansson and mentioned by Gallagher. If I was going to play for a draw, I'd play 1.d4

Regards, 
Craig 

After 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 exf4 4.Nf3 Qxd5 5.Nc3 Qa5 6.d4 Nc6, 7.Bb5 looks strong. The basic idea is that if white can play Bxc6 when black must recapture with the b-pawn followed by Bxf4 and O-O then white has a small but stable advantage. If black tries to stop this then there are a lot of tactical problems based around d5 and possibilities of trapping the balck queen.

E.g 7...Bd7 8.Qe2+ Be7 (Nge7 9.Bd2) 9.d5 Nb4 10.Bxd7+ Kxd7 11.Ne5+ 
or 7...Bg4 8.Qe2+ Be7 9.d5 a6 10.dxc6 axb5 11.cxb7
or 7...Bb4 8.Bxc6+ bxc6 9.O-O
or 7...Ne7 8.Bd2 Qb4 9.Qe2.

In each case I would say that white has at least a slight edge.

Certainly big step, from "most correct opening" to "pawn up for nothing"! If this is refutation, then 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 is equal, he he 

Have you read Hans Berliners book "the System" i think it is called where he says that the Kings Gambit is the most "correct" opening and logical? I think the answers lie in systems where white allows the check on his king for example 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Be2 or d4. I think for those who wish to play the ruy lopez but are worried about preparation of the opponent, turn the tide and play the bird variaton of the ruy, it is not as bad as people think. Also if you do switch from the kings gambit, stay agressive, play the scotch.

Just wondering, what's wrong with the 5...Nf6 6.Nxg4 lines of the Kieseritsky? 6...d6 leads back into the 5...d6 lines which I think white can hold his own in, and I dont see any problem with 6...d5 either. The only line which would concern me is 6...Nxe4 7.d3 Ng3 8.Rh3, but from the little look I've had, white should be okay here I'd think. 

Also, on the subject of the Quaade being met with 4...Nc6, can white just try 5.h3? I know it looks unnatural and wrong, but the lines look okay to me.

Regards, 
Craig

You are right. As a newly acquired ability, it needs improving... But I am on my way!