The birds opening

Okay, hopefully we are past all the arguments...anyone who seriously wants to learn some cool new lines in the Bird, maybe we can post some ideas...now I know that my ideas are not going to be considered main-line by any degree, and you cannot push the Bird - it is solid, and in certain lines you must prepare ideas.  I think any opening you choose, you must learn to play into the strengths and weaknesses. 

Here is an idea I played once in a game:

f4-Nf3-e3-a3!? (I can't remember the Black player's moves, but I played this initial move order).  The opening is not at all aggressive, but it has potentials...A lot of people may lamblast it as a waste of time, opting for d4 or b3...but you might be surprised if you flip the board...this idea is actually a DEFENSIVE idea of Dzindzi, normally played in the following move order: d4 Nf6 c4 e6 (aiming for a Nimzo) Nf3 a6!? (preparing for a Benko-like position, without provoking the d-pawn advance with c5...now the d-pawn can be fought against with the c-pawn at a later stage).

And of course, I am always looking for new, provocative ideas to push e4.  I know the normal ideas...but I like coming up with new ideas...if you have any unusual ideas in the Bird, please post!  I love new and unusual ideas, they are a hoot to explore!

Well, 1...c5 is a valid idea against the Bird, but you haven't clamped down on e4, and you give White the chance to play e4 quickly, unless you play something like Nf6 or d5 on the next move.  If you are comfortable with White playing e4, then a few developing ideas would be a quick g6 (many Bird players attack with b3-Bb2) Bg7 and then Nf6 and 0-0 probably. 

A decent setup for the Black player to not get into theoretical battles and simply fight a good game of chess is as follows (if possible) - d5-g6 (of course, if White plays f4 d5 b3, then g6 must first be guarded by Nf6 if you want to go that route)-Bg7-Nf6-0-0-c5-Nc6 and then fight wherever you need to go.

Standard ideas in the Bird are f4-Nf3-e3 and f4-Nf3-g3, intending eventually to attack on the kingside.  This is one of the lures of the Bird - White invests his initial move on kingside space, hoping to fight his main battle there.  But that doesn't mean he can't fight queenside, or center...the bird is flexible enough that White has a huge number of choices at his disposal, and the reason so many people don't think much of the opening is that it is not consistently employed by GMs.  But so many of us are not GM's, and I love to find weird variations in the Bird that catch my opponent off-guard early.  I have an idea recently that I haven't yet got to try - kind of like this - f4/Nf3/d4/Bf4(or g5)/Nc3/Qd2(or d3) and 0-0-0, and begin a quick k-side attack...most Bird players quickly castle kingside, but I have been thinking about this style a lot recently...

<jaxswain> I fail to see how it was a stalemate. I made my point about the bird's opening, stood by it, and cheesehat has yet to respond. Instead of a post that merely tells people to be quiet, why not add to the discussion? This is, after all, a thread of the bird's opening...

<Rael> I'm sorry, but that post was more "atrocious" than Chessbully911's spelling could ever. The entire point of your post was to discredit someone only because of their spelling? That's pretty low.

I didnt respond cos it was a dead thread. The creater knew what he needed to, and left.

1. ...c5 DOES control e4 indirectly as 2. e4 is an inferior Grand Prix Attack.

Im standing by my argument as well.

A few coincidences allow us to realise that 1. e4 and 1. d4 are "equal".

MATHEMATICALLY, 1. d4 does not open up development as well as 1. e4 does, but it is BECAUSE of this that 1. d4 is on equal terms as 1. e4.

If black plays 1. ...d5, then he is a tempo down. Case closed.

If black plays 1. e5, then he loses a pawn for little compensation (there IS compensation, but not enough). White can give back the pawn at the right time for a lead in development, safe king, and better position.

If black plays 1. ...Nf6, the position is stable for both players, such as 1. e4 e5  2. Nf3 Nc6  3. Bc4 Bc5  4. c3 Nf6  5. d4 ed4  6. cd4 Bb4+, where I personally prefer white, but black has chances with accurate play. Accurate play, or correct play as I should call it because some people don't want me saying the word 'accurate', is required in 1. ...Nf6 in response to 1. d4 as inaccurate play leads to a cramped and inferior position for black.

If black plays 1. ...f5, he counterattacks as in the sicilian, and is probably the most ambitions try for an advantage. However, he SLIGHTLY weakens his kingside, and Nf6 leads to Bg5 pin, which I, playing the Dutch as black (which I rarely do, Tarrasch QGD), is something I'd rather avoid. The Kingside doubled pawns are somewhat worse than the Queenside Doubled pawns created by the sicilian pin or atack on the knight, Bb5, is somewhat worse, especially since 1. d4 f5 is a slow paced game, and being behind in developemnt, castling 'time' and having a weakened pawn structure can't be good.

Why is c5 better than f5? because lines can be opened quickly, and, though white may have a slight advantage at some times of the opening, black can equalise through queenside thrusts, while white attacks the kingside.

In the Dutch however, white attacks on the queenside and black the kingside. The difference? White can quickly punch forward c4, nc3, etc whenever he wishes, while in the sicilian he must be weary of a weakened king.

All this said, remember it is a SLOW PACED GAME, usually CLOSED, so those LITTLE THINGS count a lot.

There, I proved that 1. e4=1.d4 using maths.

The above was purely maths and logic working around chess principle. Unless there is a forced tactic or variation that leads to a clear advantage for one side, it is unlikely that e4 and d4 will ever be ranked as first and second.

I do admit, that, 1. f4 is a good way to play the larsen's opening, as the play is on the queenside and centre more than the kingside.

Cheesehat, if you truly believe that the Bird or the Dutch is a slow opening, you have no understanding of it.  I have been playing the Bird and the Dutch for years, and the style I play is not based on what I want to do: it is based on what my opponent does.  I think a position should be flexible enough to handle anything, or it is not worth touching, so I have played both the Bird and Dutch and learned some pitfalls.  If the opponent played cautiously, then yes, the game can be slow...but it they are unaware, then moves like f4-e3-Nf3-b3-Bb2-Be2 (or d3 or b5, depending on what Black does) - 0-0 - Qe1 - Qh4 comes really quick, and you start to see an attack brewing quickly.  As a matter of fact, some of my quickest wins are in the Bird against an opponent who has no clue how to play against it, and some of my longest games are played with 1.f4.  As a matter of fact, I used to train under a GM, and the longest game I played against him was with a reversed Antoshin setup with f4 Nf3 c3 d3 e4 Be2 0-0. 

So it is flexible.  It depends on who is handling the pieces as to how fast it is. The best thing here is for you to sit back and start asking questions about how to play the Bird and the Dutch instead of telling a more experienced practicioner how the game goes...If you know more about 1.e4, I will be willing to listen to your ideas, but maybe just take a few minutes (it takes longer than that to master this opening) to try to understand 1. f4.  Play it a couple of thousand times, and then tell us what is wrong with it.  :-)

I'm not trying to bash you, but you obviously don't understand it a bit.  It may not be the most "aggressive" move, but it definetely sets up immediate ideas - the clamp on e5, kingside space...while not weakening the rest of the pawn chain, and not yet giving Black a clear idea where the king bishop will be.  Play this:

f4-Nf3 and then begin to find ideas for White.  You will see, there are lots of ideas to be explored.  If you have any questions, feel free to ask...we will be open 24-7 :-).

This discussion has sort of gotten off track here. A fun mix of personal insults and some very dubious arguments.

I personally don't play the Bird but calling it innaccurate is completely wrong. I've only played against it a few times OTB (never in CC). Last time I played against it I got soundly beaten, I resigned at move 17. I hate to think that the player I played against was playing inaccurate and no this wasn't in a blitz game. I'm reading a bit about it now, not so much to play it but to defend against it. Don't trust statistics too much when looking at openings, I'm not even sure what the statistics say about the bird but it certainly isn't inaccurate.

No offence to anyone but how do you prove a chess moves strength mathematically? 

Did you even read my whole post? Maths is in nature, man made structures, everywhere. Maths has proved that the Knight can move to every square on the chessboard before the game of modern chess.

How do you think tablebases and chess computeres are created? Mathematics. The moves they do? The unique personalities they each have? Mathematics.

Calculation is NOT the only thing that requires mathematics.

I'm certain you didn't read my post properly because you failed to see the connection between my Guico Piano/Indian Defenses relationship. That is similar to finding the area of a triangle, proving Pythagoras's theorem, etc.

Each move white makes presents a multitude of variations for Black. 1. e4 allows Black more active positions than 1. d4 does. 1. d4 creates a positional game where "accurate" play is required from both sides or the initiative could shift.

1. e4 is simply an open, free, tactical game where, though still important, position, space and strategy come second to King safety and piece activity.

The COINCIDENCE that the QUEENS are lined up on the same file as one another (well, it is actually maths, along with the rules, that proved that the queens lined up togehter) creates less posibilities for both sides in 1. d4 openings. I listed the variations above. White cannot launch a tactical sorte as easily as 1. e4 and Black can close the position, get his king to safety, seek equality, and when the chance presents itself, attack.

MATHEMATICALLY, the side going SECOND is better off in 'waiting, closed, and slow' games because they are first to exploit a weakness. For example, after an ideal position has been reached, it is white who must move first. Thus, he must give away SOMETHING in his move, allowing black to take control of that SOMETHING he left. Of course, a good player would leave little behind for black to take, but he also probably recieves less, as black would need less to take the less needed.

It's all maths.

Well no everything isn't math. Most things can be written in mathematical terms but math is just a human invention that allows a way to write thoughts step by step similar to theoretical philosophy. Math is a way of interpreting things, not the things itself. Many philosophers have written alot of interesting stuff about this.

Enough about what math is. When you work with math you need very clear definitions of things. I'd like to know how you mathematically define a 'active position' since you seem to imply that this definition is used when proving opening moves mathematically.

Do you have any source for these mathematical proofs or did you make them yourself? Either way could you let me see the proof? 

Why are there 32 black and 32 white squares on the chessboard? Mathematically, in a checkered pattern where there is an even number of "things" (Squares, centimetres, nanometers, buildings, mansions, Us military officials), and there are only two diffrent colour squares, there are an even number of squares of each colour. In addition, the even number is also the same. Therefore, there are 64 squares on a 8x8 board and 32 white abd 32 black squares.

It is a rule of chess that the queens start on the same colour square as the colour they are themselves. This, and mathematical coincidences, allow us to realise the queens are lined uip together.

With this know, 1. d4 is a slower paced game for both sides, and, while black goes slowly, so does white, and, mathematically, with no crazy sums and numbers flying aroudn everywhere (well it really should be science), it is easier to maintain equality and reach a solid position. Normally, in 1. e4 games a d4 or d5 brak can be played, but an e4 or e5 break requires more prep in 1. d4 games.

Asymetrical (omg maths term) positions are easlier to win, as the balance is thrown off, but is also easier to lose for that exact reason. That is why there have been some slaughters with the closed sicilian until some smart guy invented f5, somewhat 'symetricalising' the positioon once more.

So for the reason the game is harder to open upa nd equality is easier achieved, 1. d4 is equal to 1. e4. 1. e4 is harder for black to achieve 'True equality', as the game is fast paced and that lack of tempo is an important factor, but white must also be careful being a tempo AHEAD that he doesnt rush forward too quickly and leave some important space behind.

Cats have four legs. Dogs have four legs. You can count this mathematically. They both have one tail. There is a even number of 'things'. This shows that a cat and a dog together have a total of 8 legs and 2 tails.

Cats usually weight less than dogs the weight of a cat < the weight of a dog (omg maths term!).

This clearly proves that cats are better pets than dogs. It's not only proven, it's mathematically proven. 

in analysing my last game, i used advanced number functions to demonstrate to my opponent how much more accurate my opening sequence (1.f4 2.g4) was then his.

Sadly, he played 1...e6 2...Qh4.