KingG: <refutor> I think i was a bit too harsh on the book when i wrote that. It's not quite as bad as i thought at the time. There are a few lines here and there, and a few comments that are worth buying the book for.
Basically, my big problem with it is it is seems to be almost written from Black's side, and is overly pessimistic about many of the lines from White's point of view. McDonald doesn't seem to make any effort to provide improvements or original analysis for White, and is content to try and refute White's play in all the game he does win(most games he gives seem to be wins for Black!).
Oh yeah, and the book is way too short, and not comprehensive at all.
Basically, this is how McDonald's book can be summed up:
1)If White can survive the middlegame, which is better for Black in most lines, he has decent winning chances in the endgame, which is good for White, even a pawn down.
2)The only KG worth playing is the Bishop's Gambit(but he only gives a couple of pages on it!)
If you contrast it with Johansson's book, The King's Gambit for the Creative Aggressor, where he tries to give good, aggressive lines for White, and writes about the KG with some enthusiasm, which is totally lacking from McDonald's book.
There is no way anyone who picks up McDonald's book will ever want to play the King's Gambit, whereas someone who reads Johansson's book just might.