I have made Bird's into my ~SPICIEST~ opening for years now. No better way to start off a game than by flipping your opponent the Bird!
Is 1.f4 a playable opening?
Sort:
There's a difference tho, between an opening being playable and an opening being attractive.
1.f4 is playable, but it's not terribly attractive. It's difficult to play for a win against strong opposition from 1.f4. That hasn't stopped someone like Michael "fpawn" Aigner, a friend I've known for decades, from playing it.
If white decides to castle quickly like Carlsen, the position is quite fine for white. After castling short, the f-pawn is regularly pushed up(I think).
Mecanicas wrote:
Bongoman2406 wrote:
Mecanicas wrote:
Bongoman2406 wrote:
Mecanicas wrote:
gauranga wrote:
If you don't mind playing the KIng's Gambit, you can play 1.f4. IMO 1...e5 is Black's best reply. There are some lines in the Frohm's Gambit (1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6) and in the King's Gambit (1.f4 e5 2.e4 exf4) which look very good for Black. So I don't like playing 1.f4 anymore. I used to play it in my late teens.
"The best line". Well, I think after all it is a gambit and they are very equal in the opening. I'd play:
1. f4, e5; 2. d3,
...Nc6; 3. e4
...exf4; 3. Bxf4, d5; 4. e4, (...)
If I were playing with blacks I would play 1. f4, d5, which offers more alternatives in my opinion:
2. Nf3, c5; 3. g3, Nc6. For example. The gambit only tends to over-simplify the position.
Mecanicas, May I edit your 1.f4 d5 line?
1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 c5 3.e3 Nc6 4.Bb5, planning Bxc6 to secure e5 an outpost
Well, that's interesting move but I would play the line I proposed.
3.g3, Nc6; 4. Bg2. If we wanted to play e5, we would not any problem, because:
..., e5; 5. Nxe5, Nxe5, 6. fxe5 and whites have a strong pawn centered. If blacks play Qc7, he would lose the tempo because he will not be able to take that centered pawn giving, in the sucesive games, a better position for whites. If blacks plays, on the other hand, Ne7 to go to c6; he also would not be able to take it, because:
..., Ne7; 7. c3 (preparing to play e4), Nc6; 8. d4! (and whites have the initiative, the space and a strong center.
The idea of 3.e3 and 4.Bb5 is to put a knight on e5; Henry Bird played that, and he was the person 1.f4 was named after, so I think my line may give a slight advantage
Estimated chessmate;
3. e3 does not mean directly to put the knight on e5, instead of playing Nc6, they can plan g6 and avoid this idea.
Alright: 4. Bb5, Bd7; 5. Bxc6, Bxc6; 6. Ne5. And then? The position is pretty equal. Then blacks can play Qc7 (or e6 with the idea to play to play Bd6 to make pression over that knight). Even if the knight takes the bishop and creates a double-pawn structure the position is equal, because the space blacks have in the queenside. Thereby, your line is not slightly better, it just offers the same results, played or not by Mr. Bird.
"3.g3 and 4.Bg2 do not fight for e5"
Every fianchetto seeks to control the center in the distance or to delay the opponent's intentions to dominate That's a chess basic you can/should study or re-study.
How does fianchettoing your light square bishop help fight for control of a dark square like e5?
That's a great question! One of the counter-intuitive points that David Bronstein made in his book on the Zurich 1953 tournament is that a weakness on the light squares is also a weakness on the dark squares. In this case, by fianchettoing the light squared B, you are also shoring up the pawns on the dark squares. They work together to maximize the control of the center. This is why you put pawns on the opposite color of your Bishop when you only have one.
Larsen use to play it with some success against top GMs, I think its fun opening to play.
SmyslovFan wrote:
That's a great question! One of the counter-intuitive points that David Bronstein made in his book on the Zurich 1953 tournament is that a weakness on the light squares is also a weakness on the dark squares. In this case, by fianchettoing the light squared B, you are also shoring up the pawns on the dark squares. They work together to maximize the control of the center. This is why you put pawns on the opposite color of your Bishop when you only have one.
Wow, very nice points! From that very deep evaluation, you're a really strong player. What prevents you from being a titled player?
I'm good at teaching chess. I have plenty of reasons why I never quite made it (my highest rating was 2189), but no excuse. Players with greater challenges than I faced were able to make it.
The short answer is that it's not easy to earn a title.
Bongoman2406 a écrit :
SmyslovFan wrote:
That's a great question! One of the counter-intuitive points that David Bronstein made in his book on the Zurich 1953 tournament is that a weakness on the light squares is also a weakness on the dark squares. In this case, by fianchettoing the light squared B, you are also shoring up the pawns on the dark squares. They work together to maximize the control of the center. This is why you put pawns on the opposite color of your Bishop when you only have one.
Wow, very nice points! From that very deep evaluation, you're a really strong player. What prevents you from being a titled player?
I suggest u to read Hans Kmoch's Pawn power in chess.
A classic chess book which explains this about light/dark squares.
No need to be titled to understand this book (about 1800 is enough), SmyslovFan didnt invent this concept as he already mentionned.
intermediatedinoz wrote:
namishtheawesome wrote:
f4 is a good move!! 1st of all, it leads to a comfy trade and the WORLD CHESS CHAMPION played it.
I know about fools mate:
but only begginers follow that trap
because seriously-why play g4?
you would rather play g3...
this is not really a game
because you are about to kill someone else
say what?
it's quite playable for black, i keep whooping it with the From gambit, but every once in a while there is a smartypants who plays the kings gambit :(
mr mechanicas is navigating the base of the chessworld pyramid with great skill! he must look at the Bruce Lee films.
Eoin-MacLove wrote:
it's quite playable for black, i keep whooping it with the From gambit, but every once in a while there is a smartypants who plays the kings gambit :(
From's gambit is completely playable from both sides, and so is the king's gambit
1. f4 is psychological weapon. You may lure devoted Sicilian player into King's Gambit via transposition from the From.
1. f4?! e5!? 2. e4!?
Polar_Bear wrote:
1. f4 is psychological weapon. You may lure devoted Sicilian player into King's Gambit via transposition from the From.
1. f4?! e5!? 2. e4!?
Hey Polar, how many cheaters have U caught recently ?!? 
Polar_Bear wrote:
1. f4 is psychological weapon. You may lure devoted Sicilian player into King's Gambit via transposition from the From.>>>
I agree and I made that point earlier. It's a poor psychological weapon against the prepared player. I usually answer 1. f4 with 1. ...c5. If white eventually plays e4 then behold! We have a Sicilian! In practice white often takes two moves to accomplish e4. In the meantime I just pretend it's a Sicilian.
Optimissed wrote:
I agree and I made that point earlier. It's a poor psychological weapon against the prepared player. I usually answer 1. f4 with 1. ...c5. If white eventually plays e4 then behold! We have a Sicilian! In practice white often takes two moves to accomplish e4. In the meantime I just pretend it's a Sicilian.
I agree and I made that point earlier. It's a poor psychological weapon against the prepared player. I usually answer 1. f4 with 1. ...c5. If white eventually plays e4 then behold! We have a Sicilian! In practice white often takes two moves to accomplish e4. In the meantime I just pretend it's a Sicilian.
With all those 3 Bird games You finished as black, You must be an expert in the field.
Pfren, the logic is that the "ideal" G.P. attack isn't all that good and I've developed my own system against it, winning many games against 2000 rated players. These days I don't play against so many 2300s as I did. If they play e4 that's OK, or I wouldn't play c5. So probably 1.f4 ... c5 2. Nf3 ... e6 or a6.
I read all the posts and what I understood is the following:
- With Black avoid an early 3...c5 (after 2...d5) because White could play e3, Bb5, Bxc6/Bxd7 to increase his control over e5 (Ne5 later).
- With Black avoid 2...c5 because White gets a good version of the Grand Prix attack (without a Knight blocking c3 and avoiding the Tal Gambit).
But that only tells what Black should avoid. Not so much which ideas White has when he plays 1.f4...
- What are the general ideas of the classical Bird (with e3 and Be2)? To play Qe1, e4 later when he can? Or to attack with Qe1-Qh4, Ng5, f5, Bh6, Bxg7, f5xg6, Rxf6, Qxh7#? ;-)
- What are the general ideas of the Leningrad Bird (with g3 and Bg2)?
It's definitely a surprise to your opponent