1.e4 f6?!

You guys are arguing about handicaps. No doubt a strong player is strong and will outplay a weaker player even in an inferior position 95% of the time. But the matter is 1.e4 f6 is a terrible way for black to play PERIOD and no ammount of discussion will change that.

Anthony, we are not discussing the theoretical standing of this line.  It is obvious that it is subpar.  But that being said, we are simply discussing lines in 1. e4 f6?!  I don't advocate people learning this line, especially beginners.  I am playing it for adventure sake.  My question is - why not?  I have done much better with 1...f6 than with 1...c5, so you tell me...why not play 1...f6?  I play 1...c5, and I get whipped by a theory-jock, and I play 1...f6?! and I win.  You tell me.  1...f6?! makes my opponent have to think - oh my!  Please don't tell me I have to think for myself!  It is way less useful in terms of development, but more useful to me in terms of unexplored lines.  

zxb, thank you for your opinion.  Now, we are going to continue to discuss it, even if you think it is terrible, because we have some interest in it.  Unless you want to discuss it, why continue with the downward spiral that results in nothing?  Why not contribute your ideas, so we can discuss them - why 1...f6 is terrible?  Please, do tell...

I highly recommend this wonderful, much-maligned defense - to all of my opponents after I play 1.e4.

How odd that GMs and IMs never play it in serious games...

I was thinking a bit about this opening earlier today at the restaurant, with f6-g6-Nh6.  I was wondering about 1...g6 and 2...Nh6!? and reserving ...f6 for a later date.  I simply like 1...f6 for shock value, really.  But honestly, after the knight travels to f7, I have additional firepower on the e5 square.  So in all seriousness, I do like to provoke Bxh6.  I have seen many play with the Queen and Bishop battery on c1-h6 diagonal, which is always interesting!  

Last night, I simply began playing this as a universal system against other openings, I went 1-1, which is fine.  And my loss?  It was not in the opening, in case you were wondering.  

Nimzo, it isn't odd at all, but the oddest thing is that so many people blindly follow GM's and never try an offbeat opening because they are told not to.

Let me ask you a question - do you ever try 1. g4?  Because I can name some strong players who tried the move.  How about Tartakower and Keres?  

What about 1. b4?  Tartakower also tried that one.  

I cannot only play what I am spoonfed, regardless of what theory says.  If it was only theory, then systems in the Sicilian with ...e5 would have never been invented - the originators would have realized the hole on d5 and left them alone.  Sveshnikov would have never dreamed up what now is one of the hottest Sicilian Defenses on the market.  How about the KID, which many years ago had a pitiful theoretical standing, but was resurrected by tactical players many years back?  Or the Dutch, which has seen some ups and downs?

If it works, then try it.  I will never be Kasparov either.  I don't have time, nor the talent, for that.  1...f6 for the moment works better for me than 1...c5, so why not?

I gave it another try Birdbrain... and it worked out fairly well again!

Mezmer, you and I must be thinking on similar terms.  I was just discussing this on the forum earlier about delaying ...f6, and you play it that way!  :-)  Awesome stuff.  Always nice to find something offbeat for a fun game!  :-)

Actually, Birdbrain, I saw that you posted that idea and took off with it. As for the pawns on c6 and d5 I figured it just looked pretty, lol...

Well, I would say it is part of the hypermodern nature of the setup, to provoke White to advance the pawns, then fight against the center. 

I like to play this opening and I score some good wins with it.
But I use a different variation of the barnes opening.
I usually play like this (with included good moves for white):

Wow, the Barnes without 1...f6!  You are truly a talented player!  ;-)

Another theme of this style of play (...f6) is taking control of e5 and g5 from the Nf3.  I had a pretty quick game with it earlier against 1. e4.  As a matter of fact, I had some really interesting games earlier, even using it as a universal system, but here is the game I had earlier.

The only problem is that Black is down a pawn, but he has a nice setup.  I think it boils down to taste.  This is the type of position I was discussing earlier with 2...e5.  

And where's the problem?

I would happily give up a pawn to gain a good setup!

Bobby Fischer used 1...f6 as a response to 1 e4, if you believe the stories about how he played on ICC as an anonymous guest, and apparently smacked Nigel Short with it.

Pauix, to me, that isn't a problem.  It just isn't to everyone's taste.  I think it looked great - fit right in with my discussion of 2...e5.  

Bigdoug, wouldn't surprise me! :-)  Many high players have flirted with f3 and f6 systems with the idea of sacking the pawn for initiative. 

 gongpopo-> lmfao.

gong, was this your latest try with 1...f6?  2...g5 is awfully brave, too bad your opponent didn't know about 3. Qh5!