You have a really good point. I will have to play that soon, if not immediately after reading this :)
Why play 1. f4?
Sort:
I always cringe when I face the Bird. I used to play From's gambit, but I absolutely hate playing openings I know the refutation to. I started to play the Dutch Variation. This 800 patzer played it against me in a tournament. He transposed into the Stonewall Attack, something he always plays and I was stuck with a KID formation I have never played before. He got in an f5 and I made a bad move. He made a couple of energetic pawn sacrifices and gave me tripled pawns. My eyes had begun to glaze over. He was on the attack. I saw a win for him, but he made an in-between move that kept me in the game. I ended up winning by sacrificing the exchange for an initiative. I ended up winning a piece and ended up winning with the bishop pair versus a rook endgame. Really makes me sick seeing the Bird. I also thought it was a patzy opening. Now I am not so sure.
I now have adopted a setup that is slightly passive, but gives me a balanced game.
Any higher level players (2600+) using this opening in the past 30 years? Whose games should I look at if I want to learn the kind of games that develop from this opening. (And don't say -- Bird, of course!)
Hey the answer to your quetion is quite simple and obvious: "why not 1.f4?" "Becausa of 1...e5".
Please explain your line in the From's gambit that appears to give Black an advantage. For the prepared White player, the From's gambit is not much of a threat.
Soyelkapo, for one thing, 1...e5 is no guarantee for Black a win, by any means. If you can prove to me that Black has an automatic win with 1...e5, then great, but even GMs can't prove a refutation to 1. f4 with 1...e5, so that argument goes out the window quick. Plus, playing 1...e5 also allows White to play the King's Gambit if he doesn't feel like getting both of Black's center pawns for a few cheap threats thrown at him. 1...e5 is a valid argument against the Bird, but not the answer. Why don't we play it out and see what you think?
KillaBeez, I am a firm believer that you don't have to play the best move to find what works. Your setup is definetely solid, and I have played against it many times. The only downside is that White does get pretty easy development scheme, so it is a balanced game, like you said. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
1.f4 does nothing for your development, and really only attempts to control one of the center squares, where as e4 or d4 would control two of them. It is almost never played at GM level as far as I know. Oh and statistically I think black wins more games than white after 1.f4. I think these are enough reasons not to play it.
...Hmmm..
BigTy, then I guess you would argue against various Black defenses that many GM's have taken up, such as the King's Indian. That opening must be bad. It is a pretty shallow idea to think that an opening is bad based on GM performances. World champions have played the Bird and lost to the Bird as well. Why don't we play one and see if I can play the opening sufficient for your likings?
Sep 8, 2008
0
#12
BirdBrain, you should create a Bird's opening tournament so you can try out all sorts of new ideas. Thematic tournaments are wonderful for developing wide-ranging skill in an opening.
why not look at videochess.net, where GM Danielsen explains 1.f4 in what he calls the "polar bear"
for all you 1.f4 haters out there, good look up some of the GM games that actually use the bird opening... it's quite impressive when used correctly
I have hosted two so far, and I am definetely up for another 8-man bracket - I would love it if you would join, as well as anyone who thinks the Bird is trash - I would like to show that White comes out of the opening comfortably against virtually any Black choice. I have played it more than any other opening with decent results, on this website. I will begin a new tourney right now! If you are interested, it will be called "BirdBrain Invitational No. 2".
JG27Pyth wrote:
Any higher level players (2600+) using this opening in the past 30 years? Whose games should I look at if I want to learn the kind of games that develop from this opening. (And don't say -- Bird, of course!)
Henrik Danielsen is probably where you want to look. He's only 2510 but he's a huge advocate of the bird and has even made instructional youtubes on it. His system based off of it is called The Polar Bear System.
I do not think that the Bird would suit my style of pressure building and agressive intentions. Although I would not play it in a tournament, I spend some time preparing for the Bird.
You may be surprised at some of the aggressive lines that you can find. I have had some wild games with 1. f4. Of course, I never intended to make 1. f4 to be the main system. I still play various systems, 1.e4, 1. d4, 1. c4, 1. Nf3, 1. g3, and would probably play others also without blinking an eye. I look at it this way - people win with Black systems all the time, because White's "beginning move initiative" gave up something that Black was able to use. For instance, a move like 1. g3 may not claim as much space as 1. e4, but it is not without bite. White fights for the a8-h1 diagonal, and can either assault the center with c4 in English style, or can even play e4 and prepare a King's Indian style attack.
But most importantly, play the opening you like, and give each opening a chance.
I once won against someone higher rated than me with 1.Nh3. (50 0 live chess.)
and that is why you should give each opening a chance.
My question is, why not? People who downgrade the move generally do not understand it. I am not starting this forum to tell you 1. f4 is the best move, but I do believe (against any opening) that it is fully playable, and insures you of chances for a good game.
We take a look at White's initial move.
So, what makes people "cringe" at the thought of playing this move first? Some people don't like the fact that the king is "exposed" along the e1-h4, diagonal. But, with moves such as Nf3 and g3, that diagonal is strengthened in White's favor. Black cannot immediately use these "weaknesses" to his favor.
The other reason that people don't like the Bird is that the first move is spent pushing a pawn that does not open one diagonal for a bishop. Yet, I can still provide arguments in favor of postponing pawn moves that provide "bishop info" - White waits to show his cards, whether with b3 or d3, and either e3 or g3. Of course, each plan gives White different attacking motifs. A player fluent in 1. f4 systems will be able to discern which system is most appropriate to combat the Black move order.
Now, I want to present a strong plus in favor of 1. f4 - the grip on e5. Many players have devised many systems to fight against the "grip". Some go even so far as to sacrifice a pawn in the beginning with 1...e5, From's Gambit. Black gives up both center pawns, hoping to get an attack, but a player who is booked on Black's bag of tricks quickly puts Black in a bad position, regretting he pushed his e-pawn two squares in the first place!
People can argue that 1. d4 and 1. Nf3 serve similar purpose to claim control over the e5 square. And yes, that argument is true - they claim control over e5. However, there is one thing that 1. f4 does that these other systems do not do...Advance a pawn forward two squares, where it is aimed into kingside territory.
Playing 1. f4 is staking White's initiative upon the kingside - he stakes claim to this side of the board. It is true that his control over d5, another very critical square - is not as strong as if he had chose to play a move like e4 or c4. But, there lies the privilege of the first move.
I began to play 1. f4 a few years ago, and I lost quite a few times at first with it. I didn't really understand the system, but as I kept trying new ideas, I began to improve. Even now, I won't say that I am any master of this system. But, I always come back to it, and I always find fresh ideas to play. I have never exhausted new ideas in the system. Part of this has to do with pawns.
When you begin to push central pawns forward two squares, you are asking for immediate confrontation - pawns are taken off the board and White hopes for early tactical flairs. But in many Bird systems, certain pawns are only pushed forward one square, staking claim to critical areas of the board. And the flexibility that this provides can give you an edge that a 1. e4 system might not offer (for instance, the d3-e3 pawn duo prevents Black from seeking tactics based on Ne4 often, and with a knight on e5 and a queen on the d1-h5 diagonal, Black's ideas of Ng4 tactics are also restrained). In the meantime, White begins to build up an attack on this side of the board.
Now, I will bring up one more issue - what if Black has an accurately defended kingside? This often means that he is weaker on the queenside, or possibly (but not often to my experience) in the center. White can easily exploit the queenside through a- and b-pawn pushes, and preparing rook invasions.
Now, I started this forum to generate SERIOUS interest in 1. f4. Why shouldn't you give it a good look, if not for your main system, then a secondary one?