If you had to pick ONE b4 or f4 !?

So, in what sense 1.f4 is "weakening the king"?

The only way to show something like that is sacrifising a pawn with 1...e5 2.fxe5 d6 etc, which is known territory: Black has certain positional compensation for the pawn, which I think is enough to claim equality, although he should still PROVE it OTB.

Under nonforcing Black replies, white will simply proceed his regular Reversed Leningrad/ Closed Sicilian/ Big Clamp idea, and achieve a fairly normal and rich in ideas position, without the need to memorize a bucketload of lines (which is the case for 1.e4/d4/c4/Nf3 openings).

1.b4 on the other hand is playable, but hardly aiming at any deep strategical plan.

Instead of typing 600+ words of stuff that does not make any sense, TeacherofPain could just say "1.f4 is bad, but I have no idea why". Pretty economical, no?

https://www.chess.com/daily/game/274306716

I will prove in this game that the bird is bad.

https://www.chess.com/daily/game/274306716

I will prove in this game that the bird is bad.

i meant Henry Bird lost more games with 1.f4 against other masters as he won.

It removes immediate protection from the king if it's castled 0-0. This is an opinion that has been supported by many chess teachers over the years. However, 1. f4 isn't a weakening move in that it doesn't reduce white's nominal opening advantage to under zero, but we have to remember that many players here are comparative beginners and making such moves, as a beginner, often is criticised by chess teachers who would prefer that they learned the basics of chess before venturing into such territory.

I play neither opening but, if forced to choose, I would prefer 1. b4 to 1. f4 because b4 is more flexible and less weakening to the kingside, since it makes less sense to start a game with a non-developing and inflexible move which telegraphs clearly to black at a very early stage, than with something similar yet much more flexible on the queenside.

https://www.chess.com/daily/game/274306716

I will prove in this game that the bird is bad.

CHALLENGE ME

@TinkleDink

Any chess forumer will tell you that understanding is understanding, regardless of rating or initial impressions, whether IM or not.

What you are saying is not accurate, and also with you talking about this in this topic. How do you feel about the conversation? Do you think the Bird is good? Go ahead and play it, if you think is a good opening or if it your preference, but don't talk if you have no meaning behind what you say in the terms of other players.

So simply regardless of how high or low a person is in rating, it doesn't matter as people know what they know, you act as if because someone isn't an IM, another player is not intellegient or can't pick up some things about the game. Like who are you to tell anyone of us? You are the same and even if you were a higher level, there is this thng called Respect... 

Plus it is just not a good all-around, it was an opening of preference, from the person who made the opening in which who was called Henry Bird, it was good for him because he was good with it, but for other players that don't play the Bird, then no of course it is a weakning and inferior opening, as people don't know how to play it and for the few that do play it, it is for reasons that are preference and/or because they are just good with it naturally or just like it.(But most are not, so why would they agree with it, there are so many other variations and openings people play and it just not what most players play...)

Many people are not good with an opening like the Bird, it just wasn't mean to be mainlined for an opening, it wasn't suppose to be like e4 or d4 or c4 or even Nf3, it is called an Other opening for a reason. And though such that c4 and Nf3 are other openings, they are not as bad as 1.f4 for the majority of players.

This is why people say the Orangutan is better if you want the real truth, because nobody plays the Bird, except for the people that are exceptionally better or like the opening, otherwise who plays it?

I mean there are 5 GM's who play this opening or such, however even so that is based on what their styles are, not because it is a good opening, because many people would think it is not great to put it simply. And I do think it does give a disadvantage as there are many ways to break through, such can be said the same with the Dragon variation in the Sicilian, but also there are still some Dragon Specialists out there, but it is not a popularized opening in Master play. The same is for the Bird, in exception for the selected few that were mentioned, but who else in master play?

So @TinkleDink when you say these things it makes me wonder as what are you talking about, this discussion is not amusing because the facts and understanding of this topic speaks clearly. Moreover it doesn't make sense how you put this exactly because this has nothing to do with conversation about how the Orangutan or Bird is better or worse, the crazy thing is, is the fact that you didn't even respond to the question from what I've seen.

Regardless, please mind your business and don't come at nobody like that, just say what you need to say and move on.

You are right

I wrote that as an asnwer to the post before saying the masters invent openings the have sucess with , which bird did not so much, vut he sticked trough with it believing. SO sucees is not the only reason to invent an opening..