Why play 1. f4?

Lets not think of why NOT to play 1. f4. Let us think of why we SHOULD play f4.

2 hours later

There are no reasons, are there?

Maybe I'm missing something, but where's the rest of the game? The final position looks fairly even to me.

The cool thing about the Bird is that opening theory is riddled with mistakes and so if your opponent books up on you, their play will likely be riddled with mistakes resulting in a big advantage to White.

 1.f4 is not infrequent on GM-level because it's bad. the real reason is that most GMs select their openings based on minimizing risk. both 1.f4 and 1.d4 f5 are simply too dynamic for their taste, giving your opponent chances. you get a lot of opportunities, but so does your opponent. that's risky, and they'll rather go for something that guarantees minimal chances for the opponent, even if the cost is to not have that much chances yourself. -such risky openings won't probably come back unless there's some kind revival of crazy attacking romantic chess, and I doubt there will.

it doesn't help that engines have been hard-coded to dislike such openings. they'll claim the craziest things during the first few moves, only to end up admitting later that the middlegame is just fine. -and as the average amateur takes engine evaluation as a word of god, the myth is perpetuated, with absolutely no backing up.

I play leningrad as both black and white (eg. polar bear), and simply love it. it's extremely flexible, you can play them pretty much against anything. with crazy kingside attacks, from the centre or from queenside. attacking, positional, defensive, any way you wan't. and there usually isn't much things your opponent can force you into, you pretty much get a 'your kind of a' position every single time. it's like playing KID without the cramping and time-consuming knight-hopping to push the awkward f-pawn up. how is that not good? (and btw, I'm by no means an experienced bird player, and I still do very good with it, usually coming on top from the opening.)

and about From,  you don't have to accept it (although I usually do, a free pawn is a free pawn). you can just give it back, and something like this might happen:

 I find it interesting how easily someone like you can prove that you don't think for yourself, nor can you correctly evaluate a chess idea.  If you cannot read through these arguments and see that 1. f4 is a valid idea, you are truly missing anything chess has to offer, sir. 

1. f4 does not apply to your development scheme, but let me let you know something.  Alekhine played it.  Bronstein played it.  Capablanca played it.  Kramnik played it.  Morozevich played it.  Lasker played it.  Fischer played it.  Larsen played it. Smyslov played it.  Bird played it.  Greco played it. 

I could keep this list rolling.  It is along the same principles with the King's Gambit - it used to be a hot number until Bobby Fischer "refuted" it.  Guess what?  After he refuted it, he began to play it again!  Hello!

 You don't like 1. f4?  That is fine with me.  But don't feed people who don't yet understand it with comments like this.  The best way to prove that 1. f4 is useless is to play against someone who plays it regularly.  If you send me a challenge, I will play you, and I challenge you to defeat me in 10 move or less.  That would prove my opening choice is terrible. 

If I can complete the opening successfully, then 1. f4 is a success, and your claim is useless. 

The point is, in any situation, the 1. f4 player emerges with a position that he is used to and can successfully manipulate, since he knows the lines. 

So, in other words, I challenge you cheesehat to a game with the white pieces at 5 days/move (no computer on the weekends) - what do you say?

Here is my group, if you are interested in learning about or sharing ideas on Bird's Opening -

 http://www.chess.com/groups/home/birds-opening-lovers

Come and join!  Even if you don't want to play 1. f4, but you want to at least learn to defend against it, this is a good place to begin!

birds opening is a nice opening.

It is a suppose a fractions suspect in correspondence but OTB it is great.

Another thing,people hate the french defence as white so people play it.

People just hate bird as black so why not play it

and i am joining the group because i need something solid to smash killabeez with.

 Don't forget about Kasparov, Danielsen, GM Andres Rodriguez, etc

 You mention a key point birdbrain, and one in which mediocre players (which seem to make up about 95% of those in this thread) don't seem to be able to comprehend. Just look at the bulk of the posts here. Little more than subjective rambling about why someone should or shouldn't play 1.f4. No references to statistics. No references to instructive games. No analysis. Nothing. These people rush out to buy chess books with titles such as "Winning with the ...." or "Sicilian Dragon made easy" because they keep trying to find a magic elixir to help them win chess games. The reality is that chess is an EXTREMELY complex game and a cursory stroll through any chess club during a tournament will reveal many dozens of decisive middle and endgame errors that are the result of a lack of understanding and skill. An opening isn't going to win a chess  game. A strong chess player with technique and the ability to assess a position, as well as adjust to the changes in a position, IS going to win chess games.

The fact that GM's still play 1.f4 in serious tournament play is ample enough proof of the validity of the opening.

Thank you Mindwars - that was exactly what this opening is concerning.  I didn't know Kasparov played 1.f4!  How about it.  I know he demolished his teacher one time with the ...Bg4 lines, I believe!  But then again, he is Kasparov!

I remember www.chessgames.com had a game going against the World Champion CC player (cannot remember his name at the moment).  He chose the Leningrad as Black, and they said that was because the Leningrad is hard for a computer to understand.  Korchnoi himself said he quit playing the Dutch because he didn't understand it, if I recall. 

I remember (Morphy I believe) playing the Dutch, and it was nothing like what you expect when you hear Morphy- many prepared pawn pushes, and Black had a huge advantage later due to his excellent chances with the pawns. 

People just hear someone say "1. f4 is bad because it exposes the king and no pieces come out".  Well, then I say 1. e4 is bad because the pawn is unprotected from the first move.  Seems like similar logic patterns to me! :-)

1.f4 cannot be called bad - theoretically none of the 20 opening moves for white is a loser. It has the following pros and cons:

Advantages:

1. Very effective for players who excels in middle and endgames against players who have spent a huge amount of their time studying the openings.

2. If one did some homework, he can use 1.f4 to time-handicap the opponent, who has memorised 20-30 moves of Ruy Lopez, Sicilian-Najdorf, Nimzo-Indian, King's Indian, etc. but know only a few moves against 1.f4.

3. The KN does not obstruct the KBP, and opens up KBP file for the KR - enabling either early pawn bombardment on the kingside (if black castles kingside) or a powerful stonewall formation with supporting knight position.

4. It has got psychological advantage - it mocks at the opponent as if to say, "look how much I think about you as a chess player! I can play anything against you and get away with it!"

5. control (partial) of the center, etc.

Disadvantages:

1. It is contrary to the majority of the opening principles in the book - does not open a bishop diagonal, makes kingside pawn structure weak, voluntarily exposes the king, does only partly participate in control of the center.

2. The moves are not always intuitive - if one is not properly prepared, it is so easy to create a weak pawn structure or trapped pieces.

3. It does not try to wrestle the initiative from black.

4. Against much stronger players it is like committing hari-kiri!

I am not a Bird-lover, but i am King's gambit lover and i sometimes used Bird to trap opponent and create KG from From, when i was sure that opponent wouldn't answer 1. e2-e4 e7-e5. The main problem was that i didn't understand Leningrad and was too lazy to study hypermodern b3 methods, so i used to play Stonewall, which is not so hard for black to equalize.

I am quite surprised that From gambit is considered unsound today. I doubt about that, however i am not an expert. Here is an example game: Nyman - Larsen 0:1, corr. 1966, where Big Bent demonstrated an excellent victory. White player in this game was not just some anonymous mooncalf, he was double WCC-finalist and IMC-titled experienced postal player from Sweden. Larsen played 4. - Nf6 variation, so i think he has low opinion about 4. - g5.

Being black i wouldn't play 1. - e5!?, but rather 1. - Nf6, e.g. 2.Nf3 d6 3.b3 Nc6 4.Bb2 e5! 5.fe de 6.Nxe5(?) Nxe5 7.Bxe5 Ng4! and white has big problems (8.Bg3 Bd6 9.Bxd6 Qxd6 with double threat Qd4 and Nxh2, or 8.Bb2 Bd6 9.g3 Nxh2 10.Rxh2 Bxg3+ 11.Rf2 Qh4 -+).

 The bottom idea with ...Nf6, ...d6 and ...Nc6 gives White the opportunity to play e3 and Bb5!, to pin the knight and help fight for greater control of e5.  You may want to consider placing your knight at d7 if you want a more flexible option, unless you don't mind White's trading a bishop for a knight.  And my buddy linksspringer might pull out d4 with the f4 and create a Stonewall against your idea. 

For instance, 1. f4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d6 3. e3 (probably better than b3 here) Nc6 4. Bb5 and White already has a good development scheme. 

Also, 1. f4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d6 3. e3 Nc6 4. d4 and White still has a clamp on the e5 square, and e4 can be monitored via Nd2 and Bf3 if necessary, while White is working up a central pawn mass and beginning to divert attention to the kingside.

Now, my idea with ..Nf6, ...d6 and ...Nd7 is more passive, yet more solid.  Let's see an idea -

1. f4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d6 3. e3 Nd7 4. d4 is one idea, and Black may be able to settle for the moment with moves such as ...c6 and ...h6, slowly building a counterattacking position.

I think that is what I might play as White, honestly.  After thinking about other moves, I think this one gives White the strongest chances for an opening advantage.

From's Gambit doesn't make any sense to me.  Sacrificing two center pawns?  That rips open your center.  Though after reading this the Bird seems like a formidable opening.  I suppose it could hold its own permitting the player has studied or has overall experience with the opening.

Thank you for the great post!

The game Nyman - Larsen just illustrates weak point in white position - e4, which black controls, and this debases the value of central white pawns. IMHO black has some lasting compensation for a pawn and better perspectives in practical OTB game. White probably can't play straight 9. Bxf6 Qxf6 10. e4 Bf5. Next idea for black: FM Jerzy Konikowsky recommends in variation 4. - g5 5. g3 g4 6. Nh4 f5!? (threatening f5-f4).

The next example is an old Smyslov's idea with reversed colors: Smyslov demonstrated it is not so good to try for Dutch before white plays d2-d4, because white can play d2-d3 and control e4 or, even better, wait and choose later. This method i recommend against Bird for black. Building Stonewall against d6 (and also with reversed colors in "Would-Be-Dutch" against d3) is at least doubtful idea, because black controls point e5 and will sooner or later break e7-e5! with great force (e.g. g6, Bg7, 0-0, Re8, Bc8-g4xf3, Nbd7).

Last !!

End of Thread

Wrong - not end of thread - I enjoy seeing people's comments.  This thread was meant to open people's eyes to the Bird. 

Thats the dutch. though 1.f4 is the Bird's opening so if you found a way to move first as black and get a pawn all the way to f4 then let me know!!! Sorry, I'm super hornery today.