King's Pawn Opening: King's Head Opening

This is my favorite opening to play, and seems very good when I play OTB. The fact that it does not work often when I use it on Chess.com may be attributed to the fact that I am worse online than OTB. 

It is 1. e4 e5 2. f3

This allows me to develop my pawn structure (the method of playing that I do best) and to harass pieces moved on the king side of the board.

What do you all think of it?

I can propose an awesome continuation. Let's call it Fried King's Head :

These people know what they are doing. It is unexpected, and thus people don't often know how to defend.

This comment is absolute nonsense

It's worthy to notice that with the Fried King's Head the usual Damiano trick doesn't work! 

and white is winning! 

This is so different from the Damiano, why should it work

With the white king on e1, it would be exactly the Reversed Damiano gambit, please compare: 

Well, (un)fortunately, the Fried King's Head: Advance variation leads to the forced checkmate in 4 moves :

or

This is a completely losing line of the Damiano defense (as it is no gambit). The correct line is the Chigorin gambit of the Damiano defense wich is the only line where white can try something:

As others have commented, this opening is bad because it weakens your king's position. But no need to fear! You can play 1.d4 d5 2.c3 instead, which is in the queen side instead of the kingside. This is perfectly playable; you'll want to bring the knight to d2 at some point.

Losing or not, it's not a point here. Sure that 3. Nxe5 starts as a gambit and the term Damiano gambit is used too: https://fr.chesstempo.com/gamedb/opening/967 

Queen's Head opening. 

But the Damiano gambit is a variation of the Damiano defense. Not another thing

2 f3 is bad because:

1. It takes away your King's Knight's usually excellent opening position.

2. It exposes your King to a Qh4+ attack.

3. It violates the principle of developing pieces before Pawns

4. It's wimpy to do as White - if you want to challenge Black in the opening, f4 can be a powerful move but not f3.

As you get better in chess and play against higher rated players than you are playing OTB and online now, 2 f3 will HURT you.  Note that the players you're not doing well against online are NOT high rated players.  That's NOT the move you want.

If you concentrate on the openings, you'll improve much more slowly than if you concentrate on tactics. As a start MEMORIZE over time these pages:

https://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-tactics--definitions-and-examples

https://chesstempo.com/tactical-motifs.html

Checkmate Patterns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkmate_pattern

https://chesstempo.com/positional-motifs.html

Books I recommend:

Fred Wilson, Simple Attacking Plans – four straightforward principles demonstrated with 36 annotated games.

Martin Weteschnik, Chess Tactics from Scratch, not only examples, but principles behind how to create pins, discovered attacks, etc. Plenty of diagrams so you can follow in book alone.

Jeremy Silman, Silman’s Complete Endgame Course from Beginnner to Master – tells you what you need to know based on your rating.

Larry Evans et al, How to Open a Chess Game - chapters on principles, planning, etc.

James Eade, Chess Openings for Dummies - a chapter on principles and how to choose an opening followed by a survey of some openings in different categories (Open Games, etc.).

These are reasonable points, but aren't the real reason why 2.f3 is bad. For example, 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.f3 is good, and so is 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3. The key point here is that the DSB is able to come to e3 where it can give shelter to the king, while this is not the case after 1.e4 e5 2.f3. The other point is that f3 is usually part of a central expansion strategy, while after 1.e4 e5, it is just pointless and weakening.

Your examples are all 3 f3, NOT 2 f3.  2 f3 is bad!

Yup

I actually reduced the number of mistakes in my OTB games by adopting a pawn push method, changing me from losing to everyone OTB (before adopting 2f3) to winning against a good deal of people (after adopting 2f3). This allows me to easily threaten my opponent's pieces that come out and increase the time advantage by forcing pointless moves at the beginning whilre I build my pawn structure.

Thank you for the info, I may take your advice. (OTB, I need some time to learn on a real chessboard, some of my losing problem is that I cannot visualise moves well on a computer, whereas on a real board I can do so well.)

I'm not knocking your method, even though it's not optimal, but like I said in another comment 1.d4 2.c3 is by far better - try that and see if your results improve.