I've played the From Gambit a couple of times on Gameknot. Unfortunately the score of the more interesting one is no longer extant.

The analogous move in the Dutch is also so regarded.

www.chess.com

I think, Joe, you have forgotten. I have mentioned it a number of times in respect of the Stonewall Attack and/or Stonewall Defence.

Central control.

I reckon at this or the previous move he ought to have completed the Stonewall. Apart from that, he could then have developed his bishop at d3 (where I generally prefer it, even though it hits up against the protected pawn at g6).

7.d4 would (still) have been a good move, even though it left the e-pawn 'backward'..

Instead 8.Nxe5 Bxe5 9.d4. The backward e-pawn can't be helped: by delaying d4 when it was strong, White has left his centre in rather a tangled condition.

There are other considerations. White can now rid himself of the backward pawn by 9.e4!

An inaccuracy. White could now have played 9.e4(!) ... with the idea 9...dxe4 10.Ng5! Nf6 11.Nd2 e3 12.Nc4 and White recovers the pawn. If Black leaves the e-pawn along 9castling. say), then the pawn is free to exchange on d5 or to advance to e5 as he prefers.

Very interesting tactic, which unfortunately does leave the knight out of play and the queenside terribly underdeveloped. Something to keep in mind though. Maybe there's a position it "works" in?

Yes I have seen this sort of tactic before, I think there are positions where it works - but not when you give up the rook first!

An attractive idea, but the big downside for mine is that it rids White of his most active pieces and leaves Black with his pieces poised for instant action. This has to be a losing proposition for White.

As you would.

After 11.Nxf7, White would have got just one pawn for the piece - the horrible e-pawn. This way, though stranded on a8 and effectively lost, the knight would remain 'in being' until Black arranged to pick it up. White would have two pawns and a bit of time to hoik his pieces out of hock.