This makes me think - regarding famous gambits and other opening variations from great players from hundreds of years ago ...
have most of their plays survived the test of time? The Muzio - the Salvio and so on.
It might be hard to find out - since a play found to be too unsound would likely have become obscure and forgotten very quickly.
If there is a lot of such information available - could that be a way to study openings?
Games are decided by mistakes. Somebody has to make a mistake in order for somebody else to win ... yes I know its obvious but its often ignored ...
Science and math can be studied up to a point something like that ... what was known at whatever time - what wasn't - the implications of that and how discoveries led to other discoveries ...
unfortunately opening studies can become labyrinthine and without enough return on investment and many coaches know it so they also or instead concentrate on tactics and basic endings - so that their students might have some idea of what they're doing in the openings and middlegames.
Is 1.f4 a playable opening?
In about 10 days a new ICCF correspondence tournament is going to start, single round robin, so this might be a good chance to enter this with three games with the Bird.
I am not prepared yet, but correspondence gives time to learn on the job.
It can be an expansion on my current 'limited' repertoire with White, playing another out of the box opening, i.e. the Orang-Utan with 1.b4.
In about 10 days a new ICCF correspondence tournament is going to start, single round robin, so this might be a good chance to enter this with three games with the Bird.
I am not prepared yet, but correspondence gives time to learn on the job.
It can be an expansion on my current 'limited' repertoire with White, playing another out of the box opening, i.e. the Orang-Utan with 1.b4.
Out of the 20 possible first moves by white -
Seven are Solid. Six are 'intermediate'. And seven 'look bad'.
1) b4 is intermediate.
1) g4 'looks bad' but still wins against weak enough response.
1) f4 is one of the seven solid first moves.
But some of the other moves of those seven are better so are played more.
Regarding how to play b4 with white ...
does it hurt to think about one's opponent a bit?
Black has to face any of twenty first moves by white.
Your opponent with black has only so much time to study openings.
Chances are he won't be prepped for 1) b4 unless he plays it himself with white.
In which case you could be unlucky.
Quote:
In chess, scholar's mate is the checkmate achieved by the following moves, or similar:
1. e4 e5
2. Qh5 Nc6
3. Bc4 Nf6??
4. Qxf7#
Lol! Black has to defend his e-pawn so 2) - Nf6 doesn't work for black.
"The Danvers Opening[1] is an unorthodox chess opening characterized by the moves:
1. e4 e5
2. Qh5
It is also known as the Kentucky Opening,[2] Queen's Attack,[3] Queen's Excursion,[4] Wayward Queen Attack,[5] Patzer Opening,[6] and Parham Attack.[7]"
More often the opening is adopted by chess novices, as when actor Woody Harrelson played it against Garry Kasparov in a 1999 exhibition game in Prague.[12] Harrelson achieved a draw after being assisted by several grandmasters who were in Prague.
!!!
e4 e5
Qh5
What does black do? Hikaru Nakamura maintains that this opening is playable.
The Danvers looks better than the Napoleon opening.
The Napoleon is e4 e5 Qf3.
Black could just then play Nf6 and that's that.
e4 e5 Qh5.
Could be very annoying to black?
Well playing Nc6 shouldn't be painful for black - since its an e4 e5 opening.
Obviously, 1. f4 is playable. The only first move for white that MAY not be playable is 1. g4.
End of conversation?
Even though 1.f4 is given a bunch of bad press, I feel that it is completely playable in tournament games. On 1...e5, white can transpose to a king's gambit, and in the case of 1... d5, 2.Nf3 c5 3.e3 Nc6 Bb5, intending Bxc6 to secure e5. The last reason is why Henry Bird plays 1.f4. After all these lines and facts, I feel 1.f4 is completely playable. What do you think?
You're right.
1) f4 is very playable.
Its one of the seven better moves of the 20.
And we've had over 200 posts now discussing that and subjects related to it.
With different people expressing different views on it.
Fortunately - no one person (except the opening poster and the staff) can insist on 'end of conversation' but some might so pretend. Nobody is forced to be here.
And 1) f4 will be continued to be discussed through 50 100 years from now and so on. Like other opening moves.
Like other opening moves - discussion of 1) f4 can be enhanced by comparing it with other opening moves.
Which means those moves get discussed too.
Like other opening moves - discussion of 1) f4 can be enhanced by comparing it with other opening moves.
Which means those moves get discussed too.
You certainly seem to side with other people who, like yourself, add approximately nothing to conversations.
I have faced 1f4 only four times over the board in normal time controls in decades. Losing two and drawing two. I played it for a season or two, as white, with just over a fifty percent record. Around 45 games. This may be a normal record in club chess when your grading will continually adjust your position in a team and that team's position in a league.
Despite the seeming objective weakness of 1f4, its rarity may make up for this. Who is going to prepare against 1f4? If someone chooses 1f4 and learns the theory especially of the From Gambit, and is prepared to play it for years, it could become a successful ecological playing niche for someone...
From the point of view of practical play, there is much to recommend rarer, mildly sub-par openings IMO.
I just play c5 and moves like e6. Sooner or later something resembling a Sicilian that's worse for white will arise.
I have faced 1f4 only four times over the board in normal time controls in decades. Losing two and drawing two. I played it for a season or two, as white, with just over a fifty percent record. Around 45 games. This may be a normal record in club chess when your grading will continually adjust your position in a team and that team's position in a league.
Despite the seeming objective weakness of 1f4, its rarity may make up for this. Who is going to prepare against 1f4? If someone chooses 1f4 and learns the theory especially of the From Gambit, and is prepared to play it for years, it could become a successful ecological playing niche for someone...
From the point of view of practical play, there is much to recommend rarer, mildly sub-par openings IMO.
1) c4 is a better move than 1) f4.
But that doesn't mean they're not comparable.
White refrains from touching his center pawns or his g-knight on move 1.
But c4 and f4 both hit the center fairly hard.
c4 helps the white queen. f4 is more like a middlegame move.
Which is one of the reasons 1) c4 is better and more popular.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither move seem like good moves to start beginners/novices off with though.
Having said that though - there's a lot of paradox in chess.
If one makes it a point to not play those moves on move 1 with white ...
When playing black you will still find your opponents playing those moves against you!
Including on move 1 !!
----------------------------------------------------------
Suggests another idea that could perhaps be a Top Ten idea when showing openings to beginners/novices.
Try out prioritizing how to play black instead of how to play white.
By improving on how to play black - the student will tend to better grasp the issues for both sides.
That's provided that the student is looking wide - rather than deep.
If looking deep instead (Sicilian Najdorf and the Breyer lines of the R. Lopez) then that doesn't work.
Paradox: Present an overview of the openings or present just one opening?
The second doesn't look realistic. Even one opening has multiple lines.
the best move is always 1. e4 e5 2. Ke2
I was beginning to like 1 )e4 e5 Qh5 the last couple of days.
Hikaru says its playable.
According to an online database though -
after black responds Nc6 Bc4 g6 ... Black wins the game from there more than white does.
the best move is always 1. e4 e5 2. Ke2
I was beginning to like 1 )e4 e5 Qh5 the last couple of days.
Hikaru says its playable.
According to an online database though -
after black responds Nc6 Bc4 g6 ... Black wins the game from there more than white does.
Ke2 still better
The Staunton gambit is indeed perilous for both sides.
It is named after GM Staunton - after whom the styles of so many tournament chess sets of pieces in worldwide use are named.
'Staunton chess pieces.' 'Staunton chess set.'
Yes, from the 1800s, though of course there were no GM titles back then (I think the GM title came into existence in the 1950s), but Staunton was one of the biggest names of his time and for awhile considered the best player in the world (a sort of unofficial world chess champion; Steinitz was the first "official" world champion).
The GM title didn't start till the 1950's?
Well that's good to know!
Plus I knew Staunton was good - I didn't know he was the best. Or I forgot.
Another good one.