The problem white didn't considered is that by taking e4 black is putting pressure on g2. This is the deadly factor.

Hm. I don't usually say this about annotators 300 points higher-rated than me, but I don't really agree with a lot of your comments. I think white was absolutely in that game until 27. Bb2?! instead of 27. d6. An enjoyable game though!

The King's Gambit is more sophisticated than the crude attacking opening that the annotation makes it out to be. Tactics certainly play a part of the King's Gambit but positional handling is just as important. Often the King's Gambit is played with a view to exchange Queens and get the better endgame.

In my view, White had very good, if difficult to find, winning chances until his 33rd move (Rf7?!) and might still have held out reasonable hopes for a draw until his 40th (Qe2?). Even as late as move 44, White had a fleeting chance to embarrass White. This was in my view a very good game, certainly entertaining, and a fine example of the strategic and tactical dichotomy of attack against Kings castled on the opposite sides of the board. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and if I don't always agree with the annotator, I found his remarks complemented the game score very well. I scored it 4 stars.

Nice game. The thingh that I remember is black building up al that energy, but not being able to break through black defenses. At one point white should have won the game, but he toop struggled to find a way in. So in the end blacks stronger position won out.

GK's - I love it, but - needs a lot of little improvements. It would be nice (and clearer) to have two separate scales, one for game's "beauty", and other for the annotator's work. I don't scale the annotations often. I don't expect them to be really accurate. I like to read comments and, with time, to go through the lines. This game is very interesting for a chess lesson, as it is very rich in interesting tournarounds. Thank you for sharing, and thanks to the "commentators"!