Fred Defense




The "terrorist attack" is easily defended against, once it is recognised for what it is.

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=5466131
This is a game I played against this opening. I am still very much a learner, so excuse the rough and readiness of the general gameplay, but I hope it is still instructive.

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=5466131
This is a game I played against this opening. I am still very much a learner, so excuse the rough and readiness of the general gameplay, but I hope it is still instructive.
That's not the Fred, it is e4 e5.

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=5466131
This is a game I played against this opening. I am still very much a learner, so excuse the rough and readiness of the general gameplay, but I hope it is still instructive.
That's notthe Fred, it is e4 e5.
Apologies if I got it wrong, but I was referring specifically to the post by young_roy123, who was speaking about the power of the opening. On that basis, I adjudged Black's opening response to E4 to be irrelevant.

The white side of this is the "Tumbleweed gambit" 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Kf2 Qh4+ 4. g3 fxg3+ 5. Kg2 etc.
Its not as bad as you'd think (assuming you only play it for fun): white's only developed piece is a queen thats just waiting to be chased around, black has many open lines, a possible mobile center, and better development. Then there's the reason why I try it at times: white instinctively gets the feeling that he must mate black due to his open king (but will sometimes just waste clock time thinking or go for flawed cheapos), but its actually quite difficult without other pieces.

This is almost as bad as the boungcloud attack.
Maybe we should call that opening "The Boungcloud Defense"