Alot of top Grandmasters seemed to agree that the best move following an accepted King's Gambit was Bc4. It wasn't until I had heard that Fischer played 3. Bc4 that I began to try it out. Before that I was content playing 3. Nf3.
In the very few games that I have played the King's Gambit accepted I notice that whether I open with Nf3 or Bc4 it eventually leads to the same position. So what's the benefit of playing out the bishop first? Or is there any in your opinion?
Thanks guys.
3. Bc4 is a "faster" move and allows white to go on the offensive faster than 3. Nf3. The fundamental problem with the KG in general is that you're weakening your king side and giving up a pawn for no obvious immediate reason other than to generate a quick attack against black's king side. 3. Nf3 is a fine move, but it's a little slower than Bc4. The latter immediately hits the weak f7 square and makes black respond to it immediately.
Before Fischer, people played Nf3 because Bc4 is counterintuitive, as it allows black to play Qh4+ and the white King has to move to f1, which prevents it from castling and more importantly, prevents it from easily getting the rook on the all important f file.
However, even with that negative, 3. Nf3 is slow enough that black often has a chance to consolidate and defend. In the World of great chess players, given that chance, black will often be able to consolidate and white's pawn sac will receive insufficient compensation.
In the World of less than great players though, where black is not an expert defender, Nf3 is probably just as good or better, because it stops Qh4+.
I think one reason the KG has declined dramatically in GM play is that Nf3 is considered too slow to make up for the weakness white accepts in the KGA and Bc4 is simply too risky against a great player.