GM Emil Sutovsky recently played this variation against Nisipeanu. In New In Chess Magazine issue 7/2004 he comments the game. Here are the first few moves:
1.e4 d6 2.Nc3 e5 (2...c5 is a closed Sicilian or open but White chooses!; 2...Nf6 3.d4 e5 is more Philidor stuff, but White can play 3.f4!? when 3...e5 is a KG declined and 3...c5 a Sicilian Grand Prix, but Black has missed out on the Tal gambit as well as ...e6 and ...d5 lines)
3.f4! exf4 4.Bc4 Now it is a Bishop's gambit.
Sutovsky (as did IM Lawrence Day who played 4.d4 in this position) dislikes 4.Nf3 which he claims leads to a bad version of the classical gambit (Fischer defence). Actually this is not so, but let's just leave people thinking that and score a few easy points (Btw this demonstrates clearly that even GMs are oblivious to recent theory as ling as it has not been in Informator or the week in chess).
4...Qh4 5.Kf1 Be6 6.Qe2! This also occurred in Fischer-Evans, USA 1963. After Fischer had "refuted" the King's gambit...food for thought.

On another note I read McGrew's recent column and was very disappointed. I tried to contact him and ask if there was going to be a follow-up to the article with the real games, so far without luck.
Anyway he examines the line 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Nf6 (or 3...c6 4.Nc3 Nf6 though he doesn't indicate that these lines are analogous) 4...c6! and now:
5.e5?, 5.Qe2 and 5.Qf3 while in fact White's only playable moves are 5.d4 and 5.Bb3!   

TalJechin, I sure hope your book arrives soon!!

Lest that last post appear somewhat churlish, cutting out the Petroff, the Latvian, the Elephant etc. as well as not having to learn something good against 2...Nc6, is already a worthwhile achievement!

Personally, though, I would rather play the main lines of the Philidor than that endgame.

Thanks Vieto! 

Not much to do about the cover, it's probably not only because the cover is thin since it's also very wide...

I received an email from Trafford that my book had been shipped on Jan.25th.  Should be here any day now.  Probably will arrive at the same time as my new super-computer and team of grandmasters I've paying to disect the analysis in the book.  On second thought they can buy their own book and I can't afford another computer.

2 copies ordered the 13/01, not yet received 

3. Bc4 is a strong move, probably better than 3. Nf3.   My most promising student, now age thirteen, has been playing this way for the past several years, always with good chances for White.  We have prepared exensive notes on this system, but it's a great bonus to have this very interesting book.

The very best thing about the KG is that, unlike so many gambits, it is positionally well-founded.

Johansson's first book on the KG was good. My impression is, that his book on the Bishop's Gambit is even better; more than one step forward in developing theory.

Hi all,

I have never even considered playing the King's Gambit.  I thought it was now considered to give black a slight advantage or at least no problems.  I think I saw a few games in the last couple of years by Shirov maybe that seemed to say the KG was bad.

I have now just noticed this thread about this book with 3.Bc4.  Is this the move that makes the KG playable?  Does this mean that I don't have to worry about the Petroff, Philidor or Latvian Gambit anymore?  I don't mind the Spanish.

I don't know the author, is this book worth buying?  I know there are a lot of dodgy books out there with bad analysis by untitled players.  By reading the posts here it looks as if this is a quality book, but any help would be appreciated.