First of all, let's clarify some of the names of these openings and point out some transpositions.

After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4,
- 4.Nxd4 is the Scotch Game
- 4.Bc4 is the Scotch Gambit. After 4...Nf6 the position is the same as one from the the Two Knights' Defence after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4, but via the Scotch move order, Black has teh option to play 4...Bc5
- 4.c3 is the Göring Gambit

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Qxd4 is usually known as the Centre Game.  After 3...Nc6, a common response is 4.Qe3, with the intention of a later Qg3 to pressure the Black kingside.  White will follow up with Nc3, Bd2 and long castling.  This was briefly popular in the 1990s, but there are several reliable ways for Black to equalise, usually involving the move ...d5 at some point.

The problem with 4.Qd3 is that it risks making ...d5 easier to achieve, as after exd5 Black will be able to play ...Nb4, gainign a tempo on the queen before recapturing.  However, 4.Qd1 and 4.Qa4 are respectable alternatives, albeit not promising White anything more than equality.  All in all, I think Black's life is pretty easy in the Centre Game, as his pieces come rapidly to good positions.

If instead of 3.Qxd4, White plays 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4, that is the Danish Gambit.  Play would probably transpose to the Göring Gambit if White played instead 4.Nxc3, or to the Göring Gambit Declined if Black played 3...d5 instead of taking on c3.

Danish Dynamite is an interesting piece of work which I bought mainly for entertainment - but it is a serious study of the Danish/Göring complex (and a bit more besides).  It seems to me the authors are arguing that White can maintain equality in the main lines and gets serious practical chances if Black deviates.

I am usually a Réti and 1.d4 player, but I was thinking of playing a few 1.e4 games next season to try and sharpen up my play, and wanted a slightly daring weapon which was still essentially sound.

I desperately wanted to be convinced, but I'm afraid there were too many positions given as "unclear" or "with compensation" where the compensation seemed to me to be fizzling out, and I got the impression that if I tried either the Danish or the Göring against any halfway decent opposition, I would end up grovelling for draws in pawn-down endgames.

Also, the Declined lines with 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 d5 or 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.c3 d5 are quite easy to learn and play and give Black complete equality with no real risk at all.

However, those who are less risk-averse than me may be happy to take this chance!

"All books on this line I own, think White has good chances for an advantage. Also 4...d3 5.Bxd3 d6 6.b4 and 7.a4 is good for some White advantage. 
"

It turned out I was right about Keres likin 4.-d3, though he gives 5.Bxd3 d6 6.Qc2 Nc6 7.Nbd2 a6 8.Nb3 Ba7 9.Nbd4 Nf6 with rough equality in Nyholm-Schlechter 1914.

I don't see why Mnb's 6.b4 Bb6 7.a4 can't be met with 7.-a5, when white's queenside pawns are hardly a guarantee for an advantage.

Anyhow, since I'm not an expert, I find myself gettin a bit confused by all this 'Goring' stuff. It seems like there's several openings overlapping each other here, Keres calls 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 Schottischen Partie, a friend of mine calls it Scottish Gambit, which seems a logical name if you ask me! 
-So, who was this Goring, I presume it's not named after the nazi general...?

Finally, after 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 why not play a Scandinavian in advance with 3.Qxd4 Nc6 4.Qd3 similar to the presently fashionable 3.-Qd6!? Or simply the more traditional 4.Qa4, with an accelerated Anderssen?

Is the Goring better or equal for white then?

In an old Keres book from Sportverlag, he refers to 3.Nf3 Bc5 as the main line, while mentioning 3.-Bb4+ 4.c3 dc 5.Nxc3 d6 6.Bc4 Nf6 7.0-0 "und Schwartz kann sich nur sehr schwer verteidigen" - which I think means that black has a hard defence ahead.

In the main line he goes on with 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d5! and black ends up with an advantage in a Allied vs Alekhine game from Moscow 1920.

So if Keres doesn't mention 4.c3 then it can hardly be evident that the bishop is worse on c5 than b4. Or was he intending to play 4.c3 d3 perhaps?

The following game is the only one I can find on a higher level. I haven't checked it with Fritz, but playing through it, I get the feeling black was better and probably missed something decisive somewhere:

Zezulkin,J (2485) - Plachetka,J (2445) [C21]
CZE-chT 9899 CZE (4), 1998

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Nf3 Bc5 4.c3 dxc3 5.Nxc3 d6 6.Bc4 Nf6 7.0-0 Nc6 8.Bg5 h6 9.Bxf6 Qxf6 10.Nd5 Qd8 11.b4 Bb6 12.a4 Bg4 13.a5 Bd4 14.Rc1 0-0 15.Be2 Bxf3 16.Bxf3 a6 17.Nxc7 Bxf2+ 18.Rxf2 Qxc7 19.Be2 Qe7 20.Bc4 Ne5 21.Bd5 Qg5 22.Rc3 Rac8 23.Rfc2 Rxc3 24.Rxc3 Kh7 25.Bxb7 Rb8 26.Bxa6 Rxb4 27.Bf1 Rb2 28.a6 Qf4 29.Qe1 Ng4 30.Qg3 Qf6 31.e5 dxe5 32.h3 Qb6+ 33.Kh1 Rb1 34.Qd3+ e4 35.Qxe4+ g6 36.Qf4 Ne5 37.Rc1 Rxc1 38.Qxc1 Qd4 39.Qe1 Nc6 40.Qe8 Qf6 41.Bb5 Na7 42.Bc4 Kg7 43.Qe3 Nc8 44.Qc5 Nb6 45.Bb5 h5 46.Kg1 h4 47.Bf1 Nd7 48.Qf2 Qxf2+ 49.Kxf2 Kf6 50.Bb5 Nb6 51.a7 Kf5 52.Ke3 Ke5 53.Be8 Ke6 54.Kf4 Kd6 55.Bxf7 Kc6 56.Kg5 Kb7 57.Kxh4 Kxa7 58.Kg5 Kb7 59.Kxg6 Kc7 60.h4 Kd7 61.h5 Ke7 62.h6 Nd7 63.Kg7 1-0

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.c3 dxc3 5.bxc3 is no Göring Gambit. 3...Bc5 is also met by 4.c3, hoping to transpose to a favourable Göring Gambkt.
3...d6 4.Nxd4 is Philidor.
3...Nf6 is Petrov Defence.

3.-d6 is also an option!

I first thought 3.-d5 would be equal, but Sutovsky showed how to deal with it:

Sutovsky,E (2610) - Alterman,B (2615) [C21]
Tel Aviv super 1st Tel Aviv  (5), 15.05.1999

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Nf3 d5 4.Qxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bb5 dxe4 7.Qxd8+ Kxd8 8.Ng5 +=

i don't really like playing the petroff with white but i like the scotch.  so is 2.d4 after 1.e4 e5 a good way to reach the scotch? if i'm not wrong, Seirawan mentioned something of this sort some time ago...i don't really remember...

What are your comments ???