What rating to Play the King's Gambit?

What is the minimum rating should one be to regularly play the KG with success? Just looking at it, there seem to be many, many lines, as in it could go anywhere, Accepted and Declined.

From my point of view, the lower rating the better (lower rated people are less likely to know how to defend against it), but it's a great opening at all levels that I employ very rarely when trying to push for a win. It has been used at the GM levels in classical games by Carlsen, Nakamura, and even Kasparov.

Kramnik said once that he liked to play it - unfortunately he found no way to equalize with White...

Another story: Short said that there are so many refutations that his opponent who knew them all could not decide upon which to use and overstepped the time.

Ok, those are jokes but I would think about them.

So, have fun. I never played it myself.

Fischer asked Spassky why he played King's Gambit as it gave no advantage. Spassky replied; the Ruy Lopez gives no advantage either.

I am the one who will chime in with this one:

"Choose an opening that has little tactical tension as an improving player. IE: Ruy Lopez, Sicilian Kan, English, Queens Gambit exchange.. This will make it easier to learn real chess.", Me after hearing a similar quote in the remote chess academy by GM Igor Smirnov.

The idea is GM Smirnov as well as many GM's I speak with believe it's a waste of time to spend a lot of time on openings that take a long time to study. When an opening has a lot of tactical tension you have to not only study the moves, but you have to study the newest theory. And a player spends more time on moves they barely understand then actually studying positional chess.

These "GM's" like to claim not to study opening theory in depth until 2300. But for the practical player I say 2000. And sometimes 1800. I had this experience recently. I had a lot of the ECO memorized when I was u1200. Even had compliments on how much theory I knew. But I couldn't really claim over a 1200 rating anywhere. When I stopped looking at openings and started looking at strategy more my rating shot up. And now I am 2000. But guess what?! Even now I still can't claim anything except to my old patzer colleagues and tell them I am an expert. To the Candidate master and Experts I might be with them now, but to FM's IM's and GM's I am still considered a beginner.

I started my first actual serious study of an opening the correct way, and I am loving it. I didn't realize how much I would love the Slav defense. And I didn't realize how much theory I was missing back in the days of 1200 land. And even though I am a beginner. I understand why I should have waited.

I think the hardest part of chess is admitting what you should study over what you want to study.

Good luck,

Thanks all. Bleh. Seems everyone doesn't play it, or rarely plays it, or abandons it. or has never played it. Even Bobby F. seems to not like it. Rats, and I just bought the bible on it.
It does seem super tactical branching out like crazy. I tried it today, and the guy ran the Sicilian on me. Maybe that was an omen.

I've played the King's Gambit as my main response to e5 for a while but primarily because I enjoy having one romantic opening left in my repertoire. However, I think for both learning chess and for practical play nowadays it is (significantly) better to play the more standard openings like the Ruy Lopez or Giuoco Piano. You can follow recent master games and learn from them better, you will find you understand chess books better since they tend to use examples from openings like the Ruy Lopez and at the higher levels it is difficult to play the King's Gambit as it gives black a large edge in preparation since black can prepare for a specific line and force it while white must be prepared for all the possible lines.

DavyKOTWF - That would indicate you are not ready for an opening "LIKE" the kings gambit. Because you never buy a book on an opening and then as soon as you try it you think everyone will avoid it. e4 players have to book up every response if they want to choose heavily analyzed theory. I notice in my past that people tend to pick openings that look like each other. Either because they are aesthetically pleasing or someone close to them that is higher rated recommends the openings to them.

Here is my recommendation. If you want to learn chess forget about hyper analyzed or hyper aggressive openings all together. Forget opening names. Buy a book on pawns like "Pawn structure chess" - Soltis, and make sure it's the updated algebraic version. Or get Pawn Power by Hans Kmoch. Two tactics books, preferably one that explains themes like "Winning chess tactics", Seirawan. The other tactical book can be anything recommended like "Killer chess tactics" - It's biblical like. Or 1001 Brilliant combinations and sacrifices by Reinfeld. And it also can be any tactical site. Usually Chess.com is the recommended but I think this place is okay. Then get an endgame book. I recommend Silmans complete endgame course. It's biblical too.

There is a lot to chess and if you get lost in variations too early, you probably won't ever progress unless you are lucky or have a mind that is suited for sponging up tactical maneuvers and common set ups just by seeing them in your games. I have seen those people even have a buddy like that. But it's rare. It might even be beneficial to go through the main Seirawan series if you have the patience for that. It's four books.

1. Play winning chess
2. Winning chess tactics
3. Winning chess strategies
4. Winning chess brilliancies.

The books were the complete set and you don't need anything beyond that to be fairly competent. When I completed them I jumped from 900 to 1700 in a week on FICS. And I took a little bit of practice but in about a month I was 1780 and held that for several years. I broke 1800 and 1900 when I read Silman's How to reassess your chess, and took a video course on endgames. I had very basic opening knowledge till 1900+ and the only real opening course I took under 1900 was one by Chris Ward when he was an IM about the Dragon mainline.

I have been offering my discord access as well. Message me if you want in. I will be in a lot more and I would love to build a community that actually is dedicated to helping each other like a real club. The idea would be to analyze on lichess with like the studies but try to connect voice so you can focus better on the analysis, and the reason I chose discord is because it's easy to connect like it was a "Club". People can just walk in and say hi rather than worry about being invited.

Let me know and hope this helps.

By the way. I never seen an interaction where Fischer commented why someone played the KG. Although there was a myth about how he believed his defense refuted it. Exact story was never really told. Only thing we really know is he believe the KG was refuted, and that his "d6" move was the key. Later the idea of the KG was theoretically revived when Peter Leko played it in Linares. I believe 2007. The main Gambit opening Fischer liked was the Evans.

There is no rating range when you can play KG. It is not about strength but wheter you like it or not. And then also whether you win some or not.