Hello ppls. I kno the argument concerning f4 as a respectable opening seems to have been settled. I never use the f4 system because it's just not my taste, although i can win by large margins with it in a rare moment i feel like using it. With black i usually lose against f4 ideas. If anyone is good against f4, maybe in some of your games you beat f4 and i'd like to see how it was done. All i kno is that with Black, i always get either mated or positionally outmaneuvered. Thanks for the assistance in advance.
Why play 1. f4?
Sort:
Hey guys! Let's talk a bit seriously (just for once lol). Like I said yesterday in another post I think discussing about openings it's just nonsense. We can discuss about "new ideas" in Bird's opening (or in king's indian attack etc.) to see what's the best move in a determined position. But saying that 1. e4 is good and 1.d4 is bad is just nonsense. It all depends on our style and other circunstancies like, ad. ex. how many theory do you want to study, what does our opponent prefer to play, etc. Of course Bird's opening is an attractive line if you want to study less. Moreover it's an almost unknown opening so you can surprise your opponent.
OK. But I really think that unless you are a supergenius you should follow the "official" theory (if you have your own analysis that say that white wins always with 1.f4 then I buy them to you lol). And the official theory says that Bird's opening gives nothing to white (but of course if Black plays awful white will mate him in g7 in 15 moves, just like in a Sicilian...).
So why not 1.f4? In my case because I prefer open games and play e4 or c4 since I was a child.
On the other hand, the fact that I haven't played the From's gambit in our game does not mean that I don't trust my analysis on it. I have told to you why I didn't play it and among that I try to adapt my style to my opponent's so if I watch your games and I see that you play better or worse depending on your opponent defence I'll try to get advantage from that. That's all... But I insist: From's gambit seems playable to me and of course it's what I play in blitz games hehe.
P.S. I have to confess that I have also played the Bird's opening sometimes but only against much weaker opponents where the knowledge of the theory doesn't matter at all.
P.S.S. Be honest... do you want to play an opening called "BIRD"????? It's much better the SPANISH!!!!!! LOOOOL
As a matter of fact, recently the look of the Spanish lines has finally became attractive to me. But one thing I like about 1. f4 - automatic kingside initiative. There are plenty of Ruy lines I would have to learn. I have tried the Najdorf, for instance, and lost badly plenty of times, simply because my opponent had memorized lines. With 1. f4, there is less memorization, and hence more creative thinking.
A good example of an aggressive line against the Bird (I don't care who says what, I think personally it is good) is an early d5 "pawn sac" - I cannot remember the whole line, but I may restudy it. Taylor covered it in his book with Kramnik-Oratovsky, and if White wants a fight, he has one on his hands. It is something like f4 d5 Nf3 Bg4 e3 Nd7 h3 Bxf3 Qxf3 e5 Qxd5 (if White does not take, than Black gains some equality as well) Qh4+ Kd1 and Black has good attacking possibilities for the pawn, in my opinion.
I don't mind to share aggressive lines against my pet opening, for then I get a chance to play against them :-) - and I may try it myself. But be honest, how many times do you get to kill your opponent any quicker in the Ruy than in another opening?
And I totally agree with the argument of childhood openings. There is something about a passion for an opening - I don't care who thinks it is bad. True, you may not last 25 moves against Kasparov, but you may not do that in the Ruy either!
When I was a child and did not even understand openings, and had never seen a chess book, I invented an opening for White (you may know it as an aggressive, idealistic line in the Italian Opening that would almost never happen!) with e4, d4, Nf3, Nc3, Bc4, Bf4, 0-0, Qd2, Rad1 and Re1. Like I said, idealistic. But for a child, now looking back on that, I am fairly impressed!
As a matter of fact, I still play e4 and c4 also. I don't know the theory as well, but it makes for a nice change of pace. I learn new ideas and incorporate them into my style.
I'm not a hater, i played it once or twice as well, but i think the reason that you are able to win with it, is the surprise factor... I used it a couple of times in blitz games with unprepared opponents that didn't know what to do with it... But if you play against a strong player, blitz or long game, be prepared to face the consequences... -of course, as the last post said... anything you play against a very strong player will show you the floor from a closer distance, but chances are you mess up sooner with this-
BirdBrain wrote:
When I was a child and did not even understand openings, and had never seen a chess book, I invented an opening for White (you may know it as an aggressive, idealistic line in the Italian Opening that would almost never happen!) with e4, d4, Nf3, Nc3, Bc4, Bf4, 0-0, Qd2, Rad1 and Re1. Like I said, idealistic. But for a child, now looking back on that, I am fairly impressed!
Hehehe that's funny. I want to say just one thing: I think I can survive 25 moves against Kasparov (whithout being completely busted) playing a Ruy Lopez. But not against any other opening AT ALL.
Well, I think you have to understand why you are playing 1. f4. If you don't believe in it, then the move you played becomes a "distraction" to you. If played correctly, the move f4 can be a great contribution with f5 and even f6 if your opponent is obliging. Besides that, it is a nice barge in the way of Black trying to get kingside play in - it kind of pushes them to the other side of the board.
That is cool that you may be able to last that long against him with the Ruy. Maybe you and I can talk turkey about the Ruy, I have been interested in learning some basic ideas (not grinding lines, just concepts of the positions that arise in basic forms, such as ...a6 lines, Berlin, Marshall...we'll see what cooks up. Maybe after I get through with some of my tourneys, I can create a Ruy Lopez tourney...that might be a good idea, although I am liable to get trashed for playing a main line! :-)
Hehe I'm near to manage it! Invite me to that tourney if you finally create it please.
Okay. I have almost 10 I am in right now! I better cool it until I am through a few of them, but I will definetely keep it in mind.
I too dread facing Bird's opening as black, mostly because I figure that a player who adopts this rather unusual opening probably knows it better than I do. Those who have commented on its surprise value have the right idea; even if Bird's does not lead to the best position for white after the first move--it doesn't free a bishop and leaves the king a bit too exposed for some people's tastes--it is at the very least an excellent psychological weapon, especially against players who prefer king's pawn openings.
I will usually play 1. . . . C5 against 1. f4 and hope to transpose to a more familiar looking Sicilian formation. MCO provides some decidedly "non-Sicilian" lines that follow from this, all of which look pretty good for black. I am curious how Bird's fans respond to the Sicilian.
An episode of House (called "The Jerk" featured a game between a sick--and obnoxious--chess prodigy and the title character. Here is a snippet of dialogue from the beginning of the game (House has the black pieces):
House: Bird's Opening. Passive approach. Sign of a coward.
Nate: Sicilian Defense. Sign of an idiot.
The game never ends. "The Jerk" (unless the title of the episode refers to House himself, which I think was part of the idea) lapses into a coma with what looks like a won game for him. While the kid is unconscious, though, House finds a winning continuation (and cures the kid of course). The show hired real masters to design a plausible game, one that said something about the personalities of the characters. I'm wondering whether the kid's opinion of playing a Sicilian setup against Bird's is a common (and sound) judgment of that response.
I don't think that Bird's opening is considered passive by any means. As a matter of fact, for a normally closed opening, I believe it is a pretty aggressive closed opening IMO.
I haven't watched that episode but I'm downloading it right now. I want to know how do they translate "Bird's opening" to Spanish.
I am pretty sure that I could last about 30 moves against Kasparov in any opening. I would aim for sterile positions where the tactics are not nearly so pivotal or crucial. I played a 40 move game against Varuzhan Akobian. It was a QGD, part of my strategy to avoid complications. I made an endgame blunder and he won. He showed me how I could sacrifice a pawn to go into a completely drawn rook ending. I also think I could manage with the Bird. I would not let him get going with the tactics, but I would hold on until my position cracked.
Soyelkapo wrote:
I haven't watched that episode but I'm downloading it right now. I want to know how do they translate "Bird's opening" to Spanish.
Don't get your hopes up. The producers evidently felt that they'd lose ratings by showing too much of the game, so it's not easy to see what the moves are. Nunn's Modern Chess Openings does address how to play a Sicilian-style setup against 1. F4 though (under Bird's opening).
Black can play 1.f4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.e4... and d5 now so no small advantage for white.
so if white usually plays b3 in bird's opening dutch reversed, why doesn't black play b6? it seems to be better than g6 because it would work better with a pawn at f5 since the queen bishop is pointing at the kingside.
Sep 11, 2008
0
#58
I think comparing quality of the game to how many moves it took is a bit naive there would have to be plaenty of games where a player has been winning for the last 40 moves but has just had to slowly push the advantage. for instance it may take a while to get a win from being the exchange up but someone who loses a pawn in murky tactics that could have gone either way in less moves than it took the exchange up. I have won games in 19 moves and in 80 moves but in the 19 one it was a hard slogg i feel i really earned that victory but in the 80 move i had to simply maintain an advantage and defend against any sneaky "compensation" threats.
Sep 11, 2008
0
#59
1.f4! is just as viable a move as any other at our level (by that I mean almost anything below IM level)
I was first showed 1.f4 by the GM Henrik Danielsen. As has been pointed out in this thread he is one of the worlds biggest expert on this opening. Lately he hasn't been playing it much but it remains in his arsenal.
Same for me, 1.f4 remains in my arsenal and in fact I think it might be my highest scoring white opening move. I have 7.5/12 in Chessbase and the score improves when I add my none-database games to it. Only one loss thusfar and that was an unneccessary loss.
The strongpoint of 1.f4 is you are more likely to get a position you are familiar with and more than likely your opponent will be on new turf. Also many people blindly play 1.f4 e5 and are not strong enough in those lines. In particular I have racked up many victories (mostly blitz) with a line that almost everybody plays in the mainline From.
Don't neccessarily count on a "opening advantage" but again at "our" level opening advantage is probably less important than knowing and being comfortable in the position you are playing.
Don't discount 1.f4 just because top level players don't play it. We AREN'T top level players and we never will be so simply different considerations apply to us!
stick to the topic plz :)