you might think f4 wakenes the king side thats bull shi but wath about the kings indian defence were you play f5 it looks like it weakens the qeen side but white pices are all aimed at blacks king side so when white plays f5 black is close to resigning
1 f4 is it playable ?
Sort:
Descriptive notation isn't descriptive nor concise o.O I don't like it. Why is it called descriptive?
Carlsen's 1. a4 game for those doubting it. Radjabov had in a previous World Blitz Championship said to Carlsen that he could win with 1. a4 towards the end of the event when his opponents got tired, and apparently Radjabov was right:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1671724
Still strange that f4 is so shunned also by players that try all kinds of kingside weakening stuff in the opening. Even a guy like Keres that could play the Latvian Gambit and the Grob never tried 1. f4. It just can't be all that bad but maybe it limits white's options more than some other unusual openings.
For anyone who plays the dutch (as black) why is the bird not as good?
I would play f4 as white, but I dont' like openings like the scilicen
fabelhaft wrote:Still strange that f4 is so shunned also by players that try all kinds of kingside weakening stuff in the opening. Even a guy like Keres that could play the Latvian Gambit and the Grob never tried 1. f4. It just can't be all that bad but maybe it limits white's options more than some other unusual openings.
It's semantics really. Perhaps it does weaken the kingside but what is Black really going to do about it? In fact most of Black's replies just play in the center and queenside anyway. It's no different than the English - White moves a pawn that does nothing to aid development and yet that opening is played in superGM games. You're a lot better of watching games and playing them to learn about positions rather than just going by rules of thumb.
Jul 20, 2013
0
#29
I play the Bird a lot, classical and Leningrad. It's a good "system" opening that lets you give away an objective advantage in return for doing exactly what you want with a free hand, and it isn't as cramped as a lot of hypermodern openings you can say that about--though it has very little transpositional potential, and you really only have a couple decent strategies from move 1, which can be a good thing, but not for a master. If your opponent precisely and aggressively goes after your weak points, you may have a mess on your hands. Still, I know it well and it is highly placed in my repetoire.
Jul 22, 2013
0
#30
If you want to join a group to study 1. f4 (the Bird's Opening), you can find one here.
fabelhaft wrote:
Still strange that f4 is so shunned also by players that try all kinds of kingside weakening stuff in the opening. Even a guy like Keres that could play the Latvian Gambit and the Grob never tried 1. f4. It just can't be all that bad but maybe it limits white's options more than some other unusual openings.
ficher played it larsen played with it 30 games nimzowitch played a couple a games with it henrik danielsen 46 tarawoker played 20 games with it tarash played games with the it
birds http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1378821
and you probally know larsens imortal double bishop sacrifface
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1026352
andderson ,blackburne,evans,timothy taylor.A strong chess player once sad classical ideas are not bad they just fell out favorie and with modern knoweledge they are weapons.
people i will show you a hidden trap in the birds oppening witch i like to call the reversed rubenstein i didn't wana show you because i wannted to be a suprise vs my opponent and it took 30 min for houdini to find it
manfredmann wrote:
I would call it a reversed Spielmann; 4.Qb3 is not especially effective against the NimzoIndian, so it has to suck at least slightly a tempo down.
in the dutch oppening is rubenstein
Sep 23, 2013
0
#34
It is a reversed Dutch Indian
1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.Nf3 Bb4
White can play other 4 moves and there are differnet move orders
These Black bishop to b4 ilines as a pin or check were called the Dutch Indian by IM Robert Bellin in his books on the Dutch, I don't know if he invented the term...
but it's not a Nimzo Indian now is it ?
1.f4 is playable but not really that great. Someone mentioned 1.b3 and while I like this opening even Jacobs and Tait admit in their book that white gets no opening advantage with it. However, that and 1.Nc3 are great for giving black space and working against the overextended pawns.
For what it's worth, I like 1. c4.
Sep 23, 2013
0
#37
There are lines of the Nimzo Indian
such as 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3
( 4.e3 is the Rubinstein varaiation )
in which Black can play 4..b6
sometimes following up with ..Ne4 and ..f5
Bobby Fisher played the Nimzo this way a few times I think.
Sep 23, 2013
0
#38
I play the Nimzo, and I'm always aiming for that setup. You can definitely play the Classical Bird like a reversed Nimzo (or QID) just like the Lenningrad can be a reversed KID. You already played the fpawn out, so you have extra control of e5 from the get-go. I don't know any reason to call that setup with Qb6 a "Rubenstein", or the line that follows a "trap", but maybe I'm missing something.
Sep 23, 2013
0
#39
When I played the Birds Opening I only got to play
this Bf1-b5 pin setup 
a few times.
Black has lots of differnet ways to play
so that 1.f4 is not such a great way to cut down on needed to know opening theory/ideas.
It helped me that i played the Dutch - it knew some of the ideas already.
But not all my opponents went ..d5 
did get some From Gambits, which was the reason I had been scared to play the Birds in the past 
People who slag off 1.f4 are either trolls or need to read up on there chess history!
I play 1. f4 almost exclusively as White. It's worked quite well. Most of the time, Black will play 1. ...d5 and you'll have a reversed Dutch.