I would like to offer another game to prove that you can play the Fred against a good opponent. Black does obtain practical chances out of the opening. Even though black is only joking around when he plays 1.e4 f5 2.exf7 Kf7!!, he needs to take the opening seriously in order to obtain a good result.
I'll bet my rating points that you couldn't beat me with it. ;)
I feel that I should warn you though, I'm underrated at chess.com.
In openings , familiarisation is maybe the most important aspect.If you like a position and you know it better than your opponent it's an advantage even if the "books" say you have a worst position.
But despite that , you have to play it on a long time limit and with better opponents to have a clear "picture" of how good it is.If I win my twin brother playing 1.a4 , that hardly proves that 1.a4 is a good move, in fact it proves absolutely nothing.Against a good player you will suffer from move 1(despite the final result).Good openings are good for a reason , they have a simple logic behind every move while in this case there seems to be no logic at all on 1...f5 and 2...Kf7 or at least not a serious one.Keep experimenting though because that way you will appreciate eventually the better chances a better opening can give black.
In openings , familiarisation is maybe the most important aspect.If you like a position and you know it better than your opponent it's an advantage even if the "books" say you have a worst position.
But despite that , you have to play it on a long time limit and with better opponents to have a clear "picture" of how good it is.If I win my twin brother playing 1.a4 , that hardly proves that 1.a4 is a good move, in fact it proves absolutely nothing.Against a good player you will suffer from move 1(despite the final result).Good openings are good for a reason , they have a simple logic behind every move while in this case there seems to be no logic at all on 1...f5 and 2...Kf7 or at least not a serious one.Keep experimenting though because that way you will appreciate eventually the better chances a better opening can give black.
I have played this gambit in online chess (up to three day time limit) at chess.com and never failed to get a great position. I have beaten higher-rated players with it, under those conditions.
Can you give me the links of the games or post them?
2 Kf7 maybe ?? rather than !!
above game. white won the opening but lost the game. above game proves players can score points with anything but does not prove if the fred is playable against decent opposition. it is a handicap opening really.
enjoyed the game though.
black played well after the opening.
i thought fred was simply 1 e4 f5. is kf7 super fred?
There is no getting around the fact that the Fred (1.e4 f5 2.exf5 Kf7??) is an unsound opening and White can easily accept the pawns and leave Black's king exposed. White will have two connected passed pawns and a two pawn advantage after the main line. White will have no positional weaknesses and he should definitely win with best play. There are other good alternatives but the argument against them is that White can just accept the gambit and win.
I feel that I should apologize to those opponents that I have managed to beat using this opening. So there you have it. I'm sorry. Very, very sorry.
But I'm not going to stop!!!
I'm going to recommend a change in punctuation from 2...Kf7?? to 2...Kf7!?, and I want to give some supporting information to explain my opinion.
We were talking about the Duras Gambit 1.e4 f5 2.exf5 Nf6, and upon further analysis I now think that 3.Be2!! is very darned unpleasant for Black. Note that White is threatening mate! Here's what I am finding.
For all those reasons, I think that the punctuation of 1.e4 f5?! 2.exf5 Kf7?? should be reconsidered. I would now render it as follows: 1.e4 f5? 2.exf5 Kf7!?. It's still an unsound opening, but I no longer think that 2...Nf6 is any better.
Whoops, I overstated the case -- it's not quite a mate threat but it still looks pretty vicious.
I recently won a game with the Fred Gambit and posted about it on chess.com, so I wanted to share the post on this thread.
http://blog.chess.com/erixoltan/fred-gambit-success
There is no getting around the fact that the Fred (1.e4 f5 2.exf5 Kf7??)
This isn't the Fred, this is the Southern Fred.
The best move after exf5 is Nf6, preventing Qh5+
There is no getting around the fact that the Fred (1.e4 f5 2.exf5 Kf7??)
This isn't the Fred, this is the Southern Fred.
The best move after exf5 is Nf6, preventing Qh5+
I disagree. First, 2...Nf6 is the Duras Gambit. The Fred proper occurs after 2...Kf7?!.
After 2...Nf6, White can respond with 3.Be2! threatening mate. It is hard to say this is "better". For example, 3...d6 4.Bh5+ Kd7 5.Bf7 c5 6.Nc3, with a winning advantage for White.
I would like to disagree with the naysayers and state that I think this is a perfectly sound opening. I have recently been trounced by it and so I thought I'd try it out against Rybka. I got a little help from the Keres personality in Chessmaster Grandmaster Edition, which is a very positional and very strong player, but as long as black attacks ruthlessly from start to finish, I am not convinced at all that white can force any better than a draw.
I am, in fact, so excited by this totally unorthodox opening that I registered here on Chess.com just to post this game! At one point I was down by a knight and a bishop, but that sacrifice leads to a queen behind white's lines of defence. Does anyone think they could defend any better against this opening than the computer did?
By sound, I mean can be played with success against any strength of player. An unsound opening can be exploited by a strong player to his or her insurmountable advantage.
In order to suggest that the opening is unsound, therefore, you need to be able to show where white could make a move that would "automatically" result in some insurmountable advantage. Neither Chessmaster nor Rybka, who on a fast computer are better players than you or I (or any other living person on earth) could find one. Indeed, I was able to draw Rybka at three different points, and asked Chessmaster for help only at 23 Nxg4 (it saw the sacrifice), which put the opening over the top and secured the win.
So, I ask you, where was the opening unsound? Where could white have done better? I was recently trounced by this opening, and must admit, I don't see a good defense against it. Playing it against the computer as white, I can't win from 5. Nf6. Black has too many ways to chase the queen around the board to ever recapture momentum. This is a very fast opening for black with lots of ways to keep the game under control.
By sound, I mean can be played with success against any strength of player. An unsound opening can be exploited by a strong player to his or her insurmountable advantage.
In order to suggest that the opening is unsound, therefore, you need to be able to show where white could make a move that would "automatically" result in some insurmountable advantage. Neither Chessmaster nor Rybka, who on a fast computer are better players than you or I (or any other living person on earth) could find one. Indeed, I was able to draw Rybka at three different points, and asked Chessmaster for help only at 23 Nxg4 (it saw the sacrifice), which put the opening over the top and secured the win.
So, I ask you, where was the opening unsound? Where could white have done better? I was recently trounced by this opening, and must admit, I don't see a good defense against it. Playing it against the computer as white, I can't win from 5. Nf6. Black has too many ways to chase the queen around the board to ever recapture momentum. This is a very fast opening for black with lots of ways to keep the game under control.
Don't feed this troll
I would like to offer another game to prove that you can play the Fred against a good opponent. Black does obtain practical chances out of the opening. Even though black is only joking around when he plays 1.e4 f5 2.exf7 Kf7!!, he needs to take the opening seriously in order to obtain a good result.
I am so learning this opening. Looks interesting.