Bent Larsen had a lot of success with the f4/b3 move combo where he would fianchetto his queen bishop and put a grip on e5. (I think he often used to play the b3 first). I used to like this formation, but against superior players often found myself constricted by Black's advancing center pawns. What really deterred me, however, was the From. White can survive the From, but must know the opening about 20 moves deep. That is too much theory for me; it defeats the purpose of selecting a positional opening like the Larsen set-up where you use your brain as a brain rather than as a book.
Why play 1. f4?
Sort:
Already a dozen folks in this thread have indicated that they look forward to using the From against the Bird.
Same reason I gave up using the Bird/Larsen Attack. Why play something ultra sharp that many of your opponents just love to study, and they are salivating at the thought of putting this knowledge to use?
Perhaps it is better to play something that sidesteps that opening preparation. So your opponents' prep time is wasted.
ScarredEyes wrote:
What I find in the Bird's opening is that you are easy to pressure, very easy. I mean, a practical nuisance is after Nf3, Black answers with Bg4 and aggressively attacks the f4, or e-pawn (or pin it with Bc5 if on e3) when White castles Kingside. The problem I find with delaying castling though is that you've got to time it right, or else you're screwed against aggressive players.
However, although its hard to cope with early pressure, it's easy to cope later pressure once your opponent lets you castle kingside and consolidate before he puts pressure on you. In a way, that's the one thing I liked about the Bird - White is safe if he knows how to counter, and when someone decides to try to set it on fire, well...they're in for a good pecking if they do not do it strong enough.
Scarred, I find the Bird a comfortable system to develop in. The only line that immediately puts a test to it is From's Gambit, but it is nothing to fear. White gains a pawn that he can give back at any time, and Black must prove his gambit.
Given you record at blitz, I wouldn't change anything that you are doing in the opening. Your blitz record looks like a scene from the movie The Punisher.
Ricardo_Morro wrote:
Bent Larsen had a lot of success with the f4/b3 move combo where he would fianchetto his queen bishop and put a grip on e5. (I think he often used to play the b3 first). I used to like this formation, but against superior players often found myself constricted by Black's advancing center pawns. What really deterred me, however, was the From. White can survive the From, but must know the opening about 20 moves deep. That is too much theory for me; it defeats the purpose of selecting a positional opening like the Larsen set-up where you use your brain as a brain rather than as a book.
Why not try 1. f4 e5 2. fxe d6 3. e6!? You get straightforward play with that variation.
@BirdBrain,
I don't have my Bird/Larsen book at my fingertips, but isn't Black already ahead in development after 3)...Bxe6, and hasn't white effectively given away the advantage of the first move?
That would make the above position a "slight advantage" in favor of black, would it not? Perhaps I am mistaken. Feel free to correct me.
In any case, I'll look up the positon (later) and get back to you.
There is no need for a "book" here. After 3...Bxe6, black has good development, no weaknesses, and equal material. White's weakness created by 1.f4 is not apparent, because there is no bishop on d6, but still, I see no fun for white. Rather the opposite.
Glad to hear my intuition was correct. Black certainly looked like he was a tempo ahead in the above position.
That position was discussed on chesspub, and at first, I thought it was pretty rough too. But in looking at it, White has traded a flank pawn for a center pawn, and he can easily get in e4. That seems fair enough to me. I guess it depends on what you want out of the position. However, it is not a traditional Froms game either. Black doesn't get what he typically wants.
If white wants to equalize, then it's not such a bad move, indeed. 
I am also a member in Chesspub, but I do not pay too much attention in what is said in there: Too much opening theory and silicon brains, too little substance.
Pfren, I read your posts about From's. I take it you would play a line kind of like this with Black? (Don't think you would go for the ...Ng4 stuff)
The ...Ng4 sortie is alwas useful in those positions, but IMO Black should simply develop before (0-0, Re8, Nc6 etc). He should not have any anxiety proving his compensation for the pawn- the compensation is better development, and white kingside weaknesses. I think they constitute more than enough, with sane play. The ...Ng4 sortie is useful if white goes for d2-d3 and e2-e4, as it forces white to make concessions.
In the line you posted 6...h6 isn't bad, but 6...Re8 is IMO more exact.
One thing that I particularly like about the Bird's opening is that if the f-pawn eventually gets exchanged then White has a semi-open f-file for his rook when he castles. It's kind of like in the King's Gambit. I don't play 1. f4 very often, but when I do if my opponent offer's From's Gambit with 1. ...e5 then I will accept the gambit pawn, just to open up the f-file for my kingside rook.
pfren, I quoted that based on games from Taylor's book. He referenced a game with Larsen, who played ...h6, and his opponent played Bh4, which Taylor gave a ?. Larsen followed up with ...g5 and ...Ne4, if I recall, and he had an aggressive piece setup, going on to win the game.
In defense of 1. f4 e5, I too play From's Gambit against 1. f4, because I do believe that it provides nice pressure, and often the White player will buckle under the pressure 20-30 moves into the game. But I still feel that White has winning chances. Alekhine dubbed From's Gambit as equal, and he played the King's Gambit when he was given the opportunity. I had that game in an old chess book I don't have anymore, but found it interesting that even he essayed 1. f4. However, he was an advocate of the Dutch, so it should not surprise me too much.
Personally, I feel that the position is balanced. I don't think White is "winning" in the main lines, but I think Black has to prove his idea. If White knows his stuff, Black will get choked. I know your idea - to pressure the main weakness in White's camp, which is dealing with the e-pawn. That is the bane of the position, and why Larsen played Nc3 against the Nf6 stuff.
Bird's Opening Lovers played a game against Sac, Sac Mate with the From's Gambit, and lost in the Nf6 Nc3 Ng4 line with the White pieces. Some of the ideas that Black pulled out were very interesting, and what has always intrigued me about the Black side is how dangerous the kingside black pawns can be in the middlegame, going into the endgame! Some of the mainlines that White offers offer Black some really tricky ideas with the g- and h- pawns.
Yes, it's balanced. The reason I do like the From as an answer to 1.f4 is not that Black has any sort of advantage, but the fact that as long as he does not cae about sharp play (the ...g5 variations) he has EASY PLAY. He just should not care about the pawn minus, and apply the obvious central positional sqeeze.
Pfren, the last time I played this variation (and I don't have a premium account now, so I cannot look it up - maybe you can find it on my files) I played the ...Re8 stuff, and I steadily applied pressure to his pawn chain. It took a good 25-30 moves, but the consistent pressure finally caused him to buckle.
Another neat thing about play the From move order is that if they play 2. f4, I can play my new response to the KG (which I ABSOLUTELY love so far) - the Adelaide CounterGambit (which we previously discussed) with 1. f4 e5 2. e4 Nc6 3. Nf3 f5. The funny thing about that move order is that, according to 365chess.com, Black scores terribly with 2...Nc6 against the King's Gambit, but great with the Adelaide.
I personally think the ...g5 variation is better than Taylor gave it credit for - what is your take on that? I seem to play it more than the ...Nf6, as it does put good pressure on White, and even in the mainline that Taylor said was borderline refuted for Black, I found that it still offered Black interesting pressure on White's pawn chain.
I never understood all of these pawn chain ideas in From's Gambit until I got Korchnoi's book on the King's Gambit, and there were some lines in there that reminded me so much of the pawn structures in From's Gambit.
I have seen Naka (I think) playing that thing as black against the king's gambit, but I did not care much- Black already has a crapload of good answers.
I don't like to play it against the KG, as I think it exposes the king too much too early. I know it is a mainline response to the KG, but I don't like it. I don't mind it, however, in From's, as that little g-pawn is like a thorn in their side. There are some neat tricks, and if you can get into an endgame-type position with those kingside pawns, it creates some headaches for White. That is why I like it.
Icelandic GM Henrik Danielsen(2536) must be one of the experts in Bird's opening(he has played it in 82 games) and he has very impressive results with it(59.8%).In fact he scores better with 1.f4 than he does with 1.d4 or 1.e4.
As for the From Gambit, only 1 out of 4 responds with 1...e5 against him and his results are better than against 1...d5(14 wins , 1 draw and 5 defeats).
If I'd be an 1...e5 player, I sure would counter 1.f4 with 1...e5. However, I'm not and so I rather try to transpose into something like a Pirc/Sicilian Dragon where White plays sort of an Austrian/Grand Prix attack.