1.e4 f6?!

Okay, angels are pretty cute as well

Anyway, back to the 1. e4 f6 - I guess the book says it's bad...well, that is okay.  I tried to play the Black side of the Ruy the other day, and I won, and I put the game in the "Game Showcase" forum.  I got so many question marks on my moves from pfren's analysis, it isn't funny!  I am trying to learn the "correct" openings, but I still do pretty good with the bad ones!

discussing 1. e4 f6?  Yes

In honor of our opening discussion here, I actually found someone else who likes 1. e4 f6!  I played it against him a minute ago, and he returned the favor!  Gotta love these original games.  I am posting these in honor of Barnes Defense, and also for my new 1...f6 friend, Mobjob.

So, my new friend played the setup against me too!  We had a nice chat during this game.  He regularly plays 1...f6 stuff too, but he said he had never faced it.  Anyway, here was our game.  This was via 1. f4, and I played a Stonewall against the 1...f6 ideas. 

uhoh, wouldn't you argue that 1...f6 and 1...h6 both are openings that are less-respected?  Can we evaluate 1...h6 as better than 1...f6?  Maybe slightly, but I cannot see much more than that.  

1...f6 has a point.  Black gains control over e5, and takes away the support points of e5 and g5 from White's Nf3, in one move.  Many of the old attacks involved both Ne5 and Ng5, so I can see some reason why Barnes chose 1...f6 when he faced Morphy.  

Granted, there are no pieces developed, and the knight can no longer go to f6.  But even then, it doesn't give Black a lost game.  Black still has some ideas, and the ability to counterpunch at e5 with Nf7, which is also a nicely placed piece for both defensive and offensive ideas in the middlegame.

As always, there is a degree of surprise and confusion from playing these kind of moves.  People might be temtped to over-play their hand and make a mistake.

Basically though, its the sword fighting equivalent of tying yourself to a chair and hoping that your opponant falls on their sword in their keeness to take advantage of your folly.  Even if they do, its hardly makes your plan a good one...

Melvin, you assume I claimed it was sound.  I just said it gets a worse rap than it deserves.  I win with 1...f6 and lose with 1...c5.  That is my point.  

1...f6 is an objectively inferior move. No question about that, but chess between humans is a game of not just calculation but psychology, deception, and trickery. Therefore its OK to play it.

1. e4 f6 2. d4 e5 3. dxe5 fxe5 4. Qh5+  Black has no good options: 4 ... g6 leads to rook capture after Qxe5, 4 ... Ke7 leads to queen capture after Bg5.

Since so many people insist on giving 2...g5 as the obvious reply in the Barnes, why not use it on the terrible Sicilain Defense?  I mean, only losers like Kasparov play such a trashy attempt against 1. e4.

You guys give me a good laugh.  Melvin, you are correct about the gambit - we discussed that already.  

For everyone who posts a silly response about the Barnes, I will give you an equally ridiculous proposal.  Hey, let's discuss the stupid Ruy Lopez too - only losers play that one too.

Oddly, I do play to save the world (with predictably lamentable results).

That's just ridiculous. A real Bongcloud player would never push his king back unless he's forced. 13...Kxc3! is way better, followed by Kb2.

Pauix, I am sorry - I am not trained in the ancient art of the Bongcloud - thank you for your top secret analysis!  Say, how much do you charge to teach Bongcloud by the way?

The best way to learn the Bong is through practice. 

Just think if he would have chosen 1...f6 - they would have cowered and ran like little girls!  Oh, the audacity of thinking he DARE push his f-pawn one more square.  Just who does he think he is anyway?

Thank gambit!  Appreciate guys like you who always bring up something like me that makes this dull discussion of only what is theoretically acceptable more lively!

Hey Chris, here's a great Sicilian line for you to research too:

Hang on, let's find some more ridiculous defenses.  Here's one I heard of before called the Caro-Kann, or better yet, the joke of the century:

How about the Petroff - AKA Loser's Defense?

Since it makes so much sense to promote ridiculous lines in the Barnes, why not promote them in the main openings too?  

It makes sense to expose the weaknesses in the Barnes Defense.  Not one of us who defended it ever claimed it was par to any of the defenses I just posted ridiculous lines in.  You guys simply remind me of people who only do what you are told to do.  They tell you you must eat soup with a fork - well, you're gonna do it.  They say play Sicilian - you rush out to buy the newest book.  Ruy is the new thing?  Well, let's chase that car tire.

In the mean time, you cannot tell me one good thing about 1. e4 f6.  I challenge you (EVERY ONE OF YOU) who thinks it is stupid to actually refute it.  Don't post 2...g5 - that shows your lack of creativity.  I want to see the actual refutation.  Get your Fischer ballcap on, big boys.  Until then, keep drooling with 2...g5 and I'll keep posting stupid lines in your beloved openings.  Makes almost as much sense to me.