The birds opening

For all the math people out there, I have this to say.  Math is the language of logic, use to discuss what is possible and what is not possible, what is true and what is not true.

With that said, our current math system can be bent to prove the 2 + 2 = 5(this is because e^(pie*i) = -1, look it up).  Remember that a complete math system cannot be fully explained.

Although you need math to prove several things, complete faith in it will burn you in the end.

PS. What did dogs ever do to you neneko?

Well, if you wish to go back to 1. f4 WITHOUT maths, fine by me.

does e^pi*1 really = -1? Just like negative fibonacci numbers alternate between positive and negative?

er...

Why are you guys all ganging up on me rather than the guy that just plainly said "it is nowhere near the best opening it sucks" or something like that?

BECAUSE the queens are lined up, 1. d4 INITIALLY presnents LESS hopeful possibilities for black than 1. E4 because a break is MORE difficult to achieve SUCCESSFULLY, if not NEARLY impossible as the queen would rarely be lined up on the e file so early on in the game as black.

We have already proved that there can be 3000 something moves in a chess game maximum. Why can we not prove 1. e4 and 1. d4?

I still say that 1. f4 is not AS accurate as 1. e4, a playable way to start a nimzo-larsen attack, but not much else. 

<Cheesehat> I'm gonna be honest with ya; its fine if its your opinion, and there technically should be no argument, but with your insistence of your opinion you make it seem as if the opinion is a "truth" when its not, and that is the main reason why you are being targeted. It is well known that Chess has yet to be fully understood, so when you come to pass off some "strict" judgement without regard for exceptions and outside factors, there will be debate against it.  

It would be wise for you to stop. Your last post made very little sense, and your receiving no support for your side (which should show your understanding is a bit flawed.) There is no shame in leaving a post that only says something like "oh well, that what I think anyways" and end this debate. If you don't, and annoyingly continue this argument with more insistence of your belief, then your actions to me will be nothing more than "trollish" and I will not respond. I'm asking for a truce, if your weren't sure what my point was.

I repeat: <cheesehat>, don't restate any of your previous points. Nothing productive will come from this argument going any further.

e^pi*1  = e^pi. But if you mean e^pi*i, it really does equal -1.  I think you have to use the talor series, but I know e^pi*i = -1.

Fine by me.

I THINK that 1. f4 is inaccurate, not as good as 1. e4 or 1. d4, and is only a good way to start a nimzo-larsen attack.

I also believe it is mathematically possible to prove that 1. d4 and 1. e4 are equal.

Ok, end of statement. You don't want me to argue, I won't but I stand my case. 

preamble: i'd advise anyone whose head is mildly spinning to read the wikipedia article on computer chess, and if they're ambitious to read the Shannon 1950 paper.

second, people give math a bad rap because it uses subjective words objectively.  C.f. 'rational', 'real', 'complex', in relation to numbers.  

finally, (main point here) math is only useful in chess in making truth statements (pure Boolean logic as opposed to some fuzzy, Bayesian logic where words like NEARLY and ALMOST apply) insofar as in the applied mathematical language of game theory, which is basically where mathematicians throw up their hands at the ridiculously branched 'decision trees' and hand them to other scientists to play with. 

thus, it IS possible to say that if I have open a game of chess by swiping all your pieces except for your king, then i'll win.  (unless i'm especially self-defeating).

beginning with 1. f4!? instead of 1. e4!?  The way Moore's Law is going, I'd give it another 40 years before we get to solve chess mathematically.  And then we'd still have to deal with Fischer960 and bughouse.  

p.s. taylor series can show that e^(i*pi) = -1, but to convince someone an with advanced maths degree you'd probably need to demonstrate some absolute convergence in the complex plane too... i learned how to prove that but forgot it some time ago.

cheesehat,"I also believe it is mathematically possible to prove that 1. d4 and 1. e4 are equal."

This wrong though. I think you'll find enough material in this thread explaining why. It is your right to belive anything you want though. You have the right to belive that you have a big red invisble elephant on your head too.

darkveggie, Thanks, we needed more pseudo-science in this thread.

"second, people give math a bad rap because it uses subjective words objectively. C.f. 'rational', 'real', 'complex', in relation to numbers."

Those words have several meanings. I don't think I've ever seen anyone complain about math because it uses those words.

"finally, (main point here) math is only useful in chess in making truth statements (pure Boolean logic as opposed to some fuzzy, Bayesian logic where words like NEARLY and ALMOST apply)" 

That's more related to theoretical philosophy than math. Boolean logic can be used in math (obviously) but it doesn't stem from mathematics.

"insofar as in the applied mathematical language of game theory, which is basically where mathematicians throw up their hands at the ridiculously branched 'decision trees' and hand them to other scientists to play with."

game-theory can't really be applied to chess. It's something completely different. Even if chess is a game the 'game' in game theory refer to something completely different.

"thus, it IS possible to say that if I have open a game of chess by swiping all your pieces except for your king, then i'll win. (unless i'm especially self-defeating)."

I hope you don't claim that this relates to math. Also, I don't really get the point of this conclusion, it doesn't seem to prove much. 

"beginning with 1. f4!? instead of 1. e4!? The way Moore's Law is going, I'd give it another 40 years before we get to solve chess mathematically."

What you're thinking of if you refer to moores laws impact on solving chess is some kind of brute force method. Like creating endgame tables up to 32-men tables (wich at the current pace would take closer to 40 billion years than 40). Solving chess mathematically doesn't sound like a way of solving it through brute force, I'm actually not sure what you mean with solving chess mathemtically (are you even aware of what you mean with this yourself?).

"taylor series can show that e^(i*pi) = -1, but to convince someone an with advanced maths degree you'd probably need to demonstrate some absolute convergence in the complex plane too" 

The taylor series are enough to prove it (even to people with advanced degrees in mathematics). 

And cheesehat, it is NOT a good way to start a Nimzo-Larsen attack, as you give Black the opportunity of playing 1...g6.  That is why Larsen began to play 1. b3 in the first place.  People began to see how potent the potential was with 1. f4 and 2. b3.  So they played 1...g6 and were still able to neutralize many threats that White originally used in these systems.  Note that you still can play a Nimzo-Larsen with White by blocking the diagonal with Nc3, but it is not as aggressive.  So many players, including Danielsen, now use the reversed Leningrad system with f4 Nf3 and g3, and then they later decide the fate of the c3 square, whether or not to place a pawn there or a knight.  Some study of The Bird's Opening will help you gain some grasp of the system.  Go to the youtube website and listen to Danielsen teach you about his polar bear system.  The man is a GM using the Bird's and he wins some beautiful games.  The ideas have been discarded by many GM's because...well...for whatever reason.  Honestly, I don't see a good reason to discard them.  There are many lines in 1. e4 games or in 1. d4 games that are equal, yet unbalanced.  1. f4 gives White good fighting chances, and I don't care who tells you otherwise.  If you know what you are doing, you won't lose instantly - you will survive into the middlegame with a perfectly playable position.  And then you can have fun!  You will have more understanding of the middle game positions than your opponent!

 to stay OTB WRT topic - chess and science aren't too far apart.  that's why i took out the shannon paper.  call me a pseudo-scientist and i don't mind (e.g. i know better), but if you mess with my boy claude shannon you're in deep waters.

as for the rest of my statements, i'd be happy to talk about them offline, i.e. off the forum.

briefly, by 'solve chess mathematically', i actually DO mean the silly way, i.e. brute force.  and who really knows how long it'll take to get computers to make 32-man tables?  i don't.  i'm just guessing.

'solving' chess the way cheesehat proposes to, i.e. by first 'principles' or a heuristic system about chess (which, by the way, is the right way to play chess, but not to waterproof/idiotproof it against math), is likely (but not definitely) a foolhardy proposal. 

moral is this: save pure maths for the mathematicians.  i'm just a dabbler. people (including me) get upset when you imprecisely (or poetically) appropriate it for your own purposes, including chess.  

unwarranted advice (is there any other?) to the OP, tongue in cheek (as always): play the pirc instead.  some passive aggression might do you good. 

I play 1. f4 after having done a lot of experimention between it and 1. c4

 It seems the biggest concern is the weakened kingside, however I find that the piece synergy that naturally follows gives a quite active and healthy kingside defense, which easily turns into an offense.

My favorite tactic so far is to sacrfice this initial pawn and to kingside castle in some combination as to get command of a file.

 With the king's knight, biship and rook all doubling as offense and defense along with queenside pieces that tend to get drawn in for the king's defense, the center of the board is not full of pawns acting like targets, but full of the threats by major pieces.

This is the kind of comments we need in this forum.  Guys, please, let the rest of this forum revolve around the Bird's Opening and its ideas.  I love your plans to solve chess mathematically, but then it will be no fun, and furthermore, you will probably be bored with it and want to solve Shogi as well.  Let's take the math discussion to the General Forum area please...no disrespect intended, but I just would like to read in this forum and see nothing but Bird's Opening ideas.  If that offends you, I am sorry.  But please, have some respect for us who respect the Bird's Opening.  If you don't respect it, please don't tell us why you don't respect it.  Maybe some advice on how to handle the Black pieces would be nice.  But let's get serious.  I want to hear what a person who has experienced it from the White or Black side has to say.

 Please, guys, if you would do that, it would be great. 

Hairypoet, can you give an example of a game in which you used that idea to effect - with sacrificing the pawn, and the kingside castle?  And by the way, one theme in the Bird is just what you are mentioning - the pieces protect the king, and a lot of the time, you can block the center, which means the wings are up for attack, and in the Bird, you have opportunities at either end sometimes.  If they are overcautious of the kingside, sometimes they forget the queenside, and a4! comes like a hammer.  I had a recent game against a computer - not Fritz 10 or anything like that - that had a similar theme...the pawns were a shield for the center, so nothing could attack my king on a diagonal...and with a bishop on d2, queen on e1, rook on a1, open a file and a knight on the queenside, I had his pieces tied up there, while in the meantime, I was also preparing kingside plans. 

So there are ideas - lets see some ideas! :-)

ok, back to "chess openings"... :-}

i've never played the Bird as white, but when I see 1. f4 as Black I always go 'uhoh'.  But if I were to play it as white, I'd O-O and try to clear the f-file, or maybe even close the middle and play something like g4.  

i only recently started playing chess more, so i'm beginner club level at best, but... this is a position i reached against the Bird as black a few days ago (on chess.com) where white half-opened the f-file, after exchanging knights on e5.  I felt like I was behind a bit.

I guess covering c3 might have been one of several reason my opponent could've chosen that line, wallish as it turned out.

P.S. Play continues with lots of trades, Q's come off and I get to play c5, breaking up the party in the center. White slips a pawn, it's a rook endgame, exciting chess for my $, 0-1.

Alright!  Now that's what I'm talking about.  Okay, let's discuss some ideas. Now, I am not one to discuss exact lines, they bore me to tears...I would rather talk ideas.  Your position as Black looked passive, but not unplayable.  One thing I like is your control of f5.  I would immediately have traded the light bishop first instead of Kb8, unless you had plans attacking on the g-file, which might be interesting as well.  Then, of course, Nf6 and activating the bishop on f8 quickly.  Your pawn structure was fairly tight.  So that is a plus.  Plus you haven't yet played g6 and e6, so you are doing decent of not allowing too many holes on the kingside for White to prod. 

The position looks like one I would have many times in my earlier days with the Bird.  A lot of the time it comes from a reversed Stonewall.  But there is a downside to his play - you can tell he is going to fight only with pieces. 

If I was playing 1. f4, I would be patient to see where you were going to place your king.  Since you castled queenside, I could begin to prepare my attack with a4 and b4, even sacking pawns if necessary to open lines to the king.  Think of the Yugoslav in the Sicilian Dragon.  White sacks his h-pawn to gain an attack.  I'm not saying all attacks will be played perfectly, but practice makes perfect! 

As far as early development, g6 is good for Black to prevent Bb2 ideas.  Bg7 helps control the center, so the ideas are good.  A basic idea for development and castling may go as follows for a game of the Bird.

f4 g6

If you want the most flexible position allow

thanks.  the play is nice and open-ended for both sides in your line.   i'm tipping my hand a bit - i usually prefer a snarky modern approach (like this game) to a more open, flexible one like you're espousing.  i'd play off that position, but i probably wouldn't reach it myself.

i didn't trade the light B's earlier because i thought if I traded B's on d3 I wouldn't  castle queenside with the white Q eyeing a7. 

And once he exchanged on e5 i had this weird french-like idea in the back of my head to play c5 prematurely (hence Kb8 - preparing Rc8).  i don't know many openings, so i shoot from the hip. opening up the g file with a light B trade was also a possibility, as was posting up a N on e4, and maybe trying to pick off the e3 pawn...

... but e4 changed most of that.

There is one sure thing, do not disrespect this opening, it may look "bad" but in the hands of a player who is experienced in it, it can be lethal.

I have had some success using the lines given by Palliser in his book, "Beating Unusual Chess Openings".

1. f4 d5 2. Nf3 Bg4 3. e3 Nd7

Subsequent play will largely depend on how White plays, but in all lines, Black has counterplay.

As a note of how 'equal' this opening can be, this opponent and I have played five games with 1. f4 and the score stands at 3 wins to 2 wins for Black.