Why play 1. f4?

In my opinion Black will equalize fast and it weakens the position of White's King. Probably the reason it's not studied as much as 1. e4, 1. d4, or 1. c4.

Michael, he also advocated a non-conventional approach to From's Gambit that I don't think pfren would be enthusiastic about.  I believe it went like this:

That is really a huge problem when you play in Linares against Carlsen , Kramnik and Aronian.Until then it is perfectly playable.  

That variation ( #174) can be good only for black.

1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nf3 d6 and now of course most people don't play 4.fe5 de5 when Black is already structurally better (he just has to avoid an early Bb5 pin). Danielsen has played twice 5.c3 here, but his opponents did not go for the most natural replies (namely 5...Nf6 or even better 5...Bb6!) when Black should have a great game.

It's quite likely that following the From Gambit order, 4...Nf6 is even better than 4...Bc5.

pfren, I am not sold on that variation either.  Here is my take on From's Gambit - how I like to handle it.  Tell me what you think.

7.Nc3 instead of 7.d4 is interesting. I think it's an idea of GM Simen Agdestein, but your friend Danielsen has tried it, too. Generally I'm not too keen on 4...g5, although some strong players employ it frequently. I think that 4...Nf6 is both simple, and pretty good.

The part I like about 7. Nc3 is that White can play the "quiet" e3, and his pawns are less prone to be exposed as targets.  That being said, the Sac Sac Mate! team found some very interesting play with the Black pieces. 

http://www.chess.com/votechess/game.html?id=20419

This is quite an interesting game! Thanks for pointing out.

Thought you might like it!  Could you offer any improvements for White?  I personally wonder if 8. d4 was too ambitious. 

I dont know man

This is a lot of talk for such a sub-par opening.  According to the chessgames.com database, the statsitics for 1. f4 are as follows (out of 2,154 games):

White wins: 33.1%

Draw: 24.5%

Black wins: 42.3%

Compare this to statistics to 1. d4 (216,000 games), for example (which are very similar to statistics for e4, c4, Nf3, and g3):

White wins: 37.3%

Draws: 37.2%

Black wins: 25.5%

If you are going to spend a good deal of time studying the opening, why would you waste it on something that is so clearly sub-par?

etr40, before I say this...my stats are going to be biased.

I used to play LOTS of games on here.  There was a time I played up to 70 games at a time - I no longer have time for that.  At least twice in my 4-year tenure here on chess.com, I have had to resign LOTS of games - some I even was on the verge of checkmating my opponent.  I didn't like it, but it was my fault.  I have learned now, and I don't play a lot of games (I think I have 7 going right now).

According to my stats, here is my 1. f4 stats - 52.1% wins, 43.8% losses, 4.1% draws.  I can bet you that if I had not resigned those games, I would be at probably 70+% wins with 1. f4.

Why do I play it?  For one, it is universal.  I am simply playing a defense (the Dutch Defense) with an extra tempo.  I get winning chances with the Dutch Defense, so to have an extra tempo?  Well, that can come in handy at any time.  

Two - less theory jocks.  If I play something mainline, they know the stuff better than me - they are studied on the lines.  1. f4 is less documented.  Take a look at the Opening Explorer.  There isn't even a name for 1. f4 c5, which is an EXTREMELY popular way to handle the Black pieces.  I call it the Sicilian Invitation, but there is no documented name.  

Not that 1. f4 is bad - it doesn't offer White the same level of advantages as 1. e4 or 1. d4.  However, it does still adhere to some solid principles - control of e5, saving a tempo on moving the pawn to f4 before having to play Nf3, etc.  

Practically speaking, White can control more shots with 1. d4 or 1. e4.  BUT - he must know more theory.  The games I get with 1. f4 are good - they have a type of closed nature, but they can quickly open up at any time and become explosive.  I can often dictate when they will open.  

If you look only at stats, you will get a bad picture.  Better to get understanding of the opening.  1. f4 does not promote piece development, and it exposes the diagonal to the king (e1-h8).  That being said, we have more control of e5, and White can shore up the a6-f1 diagonal with e3, so pesky ideas like ...Qb6 and ...Bc5 can be dealt with pretty easily.  In e4 lines, the diagonal is more loose, so those tactics are easier to execute.

I often get a type of attack you see in some Sicilian lines, or King's Indian lines - a nice pawnstorm on the kingside backed with pieces, while Black struggles to find counterplay on a queenside that has hardly been moved, and is pretty solid.  Plus, there is no king there!

Often, if I lose in the Bird, it is my own fault - I may get over-aggressive or make a mistake, but it isn't anything with the opening that causes me to lose.  If you have real questions about 1. f4, I would love to answer them if possible. 

As for the Bird's record, let it be known that Bird first tried out his opening in a multiple game series against JH Blackburne, A much stronger player than he. He lost most times, and it has rarely ever been played since. It is low in popularity, and nobody understands the goals of the Opening. Hence, loss.

The refutation to 1. f4 is 1. ...d4, where the extra tempo in a dutch defense is useless and allows Black to respond to your setup, not the other way around. You have first move disadvantage in this situation. Which is why dutch variations of the opening are very favorable for Balck.

Surprisingly, the only truly good response to 1. ...d5 is 2. b3, where after Bb2, d4, Nf3, etc. white exerts powerful control over the dark squares. This usually has white attempting a light bishop sacrifice, where he will be ahead in claiming dark squares, castling kingside to bring the rook onto the f file, and hopefully establishing an outpost on d5 where he controls the center and the kingside.

Stats based on games of patzers reveal us less than nothing.

Well 1. e4 and 1. d4 naturally control the center immediately so I think people tend to use them instead. The Bird was discarded as "original chess garbage" by some people but you do prove a good point birdbrain.

Birdbrain, I know that there is one fatal weakness to 1. f4: your opponent foresees your plans. Your opponent will try to either break your attempted pawn structure or control your weak squares.

Chess, that is untrue.  I have MANY plans up my sleeve.  Here are a few that I use beginning with 1. f4.

Trust me, I have ENOUGH original positions in the Bird to fall back on - these are just a few types I use.  There are others too, but no sense in posting them all.  The simple idea is I believe 1. f4 is very flexible in spite of its weaker reputation, and that it deserves more credit than it gets.  It does offer me plenty of ideas.  The trick is not trying to force a particular one, but rather to go with the flow. 

Birdbrain,

You can give all the personal annotation and statistics that you want, but the real statistics from high-level games do not lie.  This is an inferior opening.  That is a fact.

Now, that is not to say that it is not playable, fun, or interesting.  Also, I am sure that it might be somewhat more effective than traditional openings against weak players since they are likely to fall into traps that they are unfamiliar with.  

Nevertheless, objectively speaking, the opening stinks.

It is logical some to see it as a bad,  easy to predict , opening but that is far from true.Players like Bent Larsen and Ljubomir Ljubojevic have employed it regularly , and there are others, not so well known , still very good players(Bo Jacobsen drew against Karpov with Bird) , that also used it as their main opening.

 Not surprisingly it is very popular  in correspondence chess.Argentinian champion Julio Alberto Muhana  won the World Correspondence Champion and theoretician  Yakov Estrin with it and there are a lot correspondence masters and champions that had it as their main opening .That clearly means , not of course that it is the best opening in the world , but that there is a lot of room for creativity and originality there, as it is , practically , an uncharted territory.

   BirdBrain did something very few of us do.Used his brain.He wasn't satisfied by imitating Kramnik or Carlsen and decided to find something that will give him the chance to be creative.If Dutch defense still considered a sound opening(last time I checked there was no refutation) why Bird shouldn't?

   Yes , it has not been played by top class players the last 30 years but so does other openings like Dutch defense or Alekhine's defense.When was the last time you saw Alekhine's defense in a top-class tournament?I bet no one remembers but what does that mean , that it has been refuted?Not last time I checked. 

Some say "Bird's opening gives black an easy equality" , so very true indeed.

So what? Does ever a slight edge (or even an advantage)in the opening played any role in the result  in your games?Are your opponents so good that you can't win them if the position is equal?

  There are only 2 categories of openings, the first category are the good openings and the second category are the bad openings:

1st  Category  : Openings you undersand

2nd Category  : Openings you don't understand

Honestly, it does not make any difference what anybody says.  Everyone can argue random positions all day long, but it's meaningless in light of the hard statistics.

Again, anybody can play whatever opening they want to play and whichever one they find most fun or interesting.  There is absolutely no problem with that.  But arguing that it is as good as d4 or e4 is just plain wrong.  There is plenty of data to support this proposition.