Open 1.f4 challengers?

4... Nf6 5. Nc3 Ng4 and White is having problems with h2. Obviously White can do better than that. Again I don't mean to say the opening is only good if White falls for the tricks, but if such a strong player recommends walking right into one possibly there's something to the tricks after all.

umm... g3 Nxh2 Rxh2 Bxg3 Rf2

i'd like to say that black has something but it doesn't seem to be the case.

It's a rook, pawn, (2 connected edge passed pawns,) castling rights, and a displaced king for 2 minor pieces... seems like an interesting game to me. Black may not be crushing, but I'm not sure White is either. Are the two minors really *that* much better than the rook? I'd need to look at it with Houdini. Chesslive.de says White has 50% in that position... is that a refutation of the From? Alternately Black can keep attacking with h5 although White might be able to shut that down completely using the Knight on c3 which is not normally there yet in these lines. (Moot argument anyway as White can do much better than this with d4 instead of Nc3.)

It's not King's Gambit. It's the Bird's opening and it is a solid opening if played properly. It's more like a defense for white. It's unaggressive and it's definitely not in my repertoire.

the bird has a lot of branches, though i can't think of many of them as being "unagressive".

I often play Bird's.  People don't prepare for it, and I am a pretty aggressive player who attacks kingside and rarely queenside, and f4 is a move I will probably end up playing later on anyway ;)...so...

I prefer f4 and c4 because I dislike playing people that rely on memorized lines to get them to the middle game.  Often, either they are good players and the memorized line gives them an advantage that they nurse along, or bad players and their game falls apart soon after they leave book ;).  Neither leads to very sharp or fun games.

I don't see the point of memorising all that gambit theory against something as rare as the bird in the first place. I pick a setup I'm comfy with and just play the game.

When you lose to Bird's opening, do you ever say "my opponent gave me the bird!"?  I have a feeling this must be a common joke.

Ok, Houdini agrees the position after g3 Nxh2 Rxh2 Bxg3 Rf2 is better for White, though it doesn't think Black has a "lost game." Apparenlty I have something to learn about rook and pawn vs 2 minor pieces even when the side with the rook has passed pawns to trump in the endgame. There will be a lot of play before they can matter.

By contrast my other suggestion of h5 in place of Nxh2 seems better. Normally when White plays g3 in the Nf6 lines Black can get an attack with the h5, h4 plan, but with the Knight on c3 it does appear White can follow Ne4 or b5 to snap off the Bishop and Black doesn't get much out of it all besides his pawn back. The engine gives White about 1/4-1/3 of a pawn advantage which seems pretty normal for a White advantage at this point in most popular openings.

Also your suggestion of o-o in place of Ng4 followed by White's e3 is given as =, as are Black's Nc6 and the odd suggestion of c5 in place of o-o... which seems a little "computery" to me just because it's a move I've never heard a human mention in that position, but then again I have a lot to learn.

I still think White can probably do better than Nc3 but it doesn't seem to be a bad move at all (provided you trust a computer analysis so early in an opening.)

If white plays accurately, the best black can get is 'unclear'. There are a lot more traps for black to fall into than white

Here is one already completed game... input?

true, but that's a difference between a chess player, and one who knows  a particular opening. A particular opening player depends one a set(1-3) openings, and not even ALL the possible outcomes to a slight difference. A chess player, knows how to play any and all openings and continuosly trying different styles, til he's unstoppable. Just saying. But yes, MY favorite is the Queen's Gambit.

Well, if it's dumb, stupid, whatever...may be true, may not. But let's see you come up with an original opening and call it your own. You can call it: "at least I tried"-opening. It might not make the books, BUT hey, at least you tried...lmao!!

2...Qh4+ ? -> 2...d6 or ...Nc6. As the game proves, this does not work.

4.d4 or Nc3 followed by d4 if needed keeps the pawn and a better position, when White is only better after the game.

Around move 15 or so, Black is in very bad shape, and his only hope is something around the lines of ...Be5, ...c5, ...Bb7. He needs to develop some pieces.

23.Bxd7+ ? is a completely unsound sacrifice. White has some compensation afterwards, but it's just because Black's position was awful before.

The deeper I look at the positions after Nf6 Nc3 with Black making "normal" moves like o-o or Nc6 the more the evaluation shifts in White's favor, and a deep position analysis running all night ends up with Black worse than after Ng4 g3 h5 which is still close to equal. The thing about them, though, is Houdini wants to look at a lot of moves for both sides that are just clearly bad (Bd3 in front of the pawn for instance,) so I think the computer doesn't understand the position deep enough, and it's too early for computer analysis even with Houdini unless a human intervenes at certain steps and makes the engine look deeper at better moves. I am starting to think Bluebird1964 is close to right about the From Gambit (if a bit over-zealous,) though, and that the only good reason to play it would be to capatilize on the mistakes of your human opponent as I still don't think anyone would argue Black can't get an advantage very quickly if White makes one or two innacurate moves. I would appreciate more explanation, though, to back up such broad claims as "The From's Gambit is completely unsound." Without analysis that doesn't help us to understand anything. "Play this all day" tells us nothing about why Black's passed pawns and rook aren't as good as White's knight and bishop, and at the moment my computer isn't helping much either. I don't really know where to look. Is there material somewhere covering the Nc3 move? I always thought d4 was the only move and Nc3 would be a mistake. (Obviously if someone wants to come to the aid of the gambit with explanation as well of course I'm all ears.)

I appreciate very much your honest questions and call for open joint analysis. Sadly, my experiences at chesscom are, that nobody will help you doing that. Instead of this , some people will mock your views about a particular position, and cut analysis of a long variant at very early stage with negative words , without refuting it. Those people are either weak players, or vain trolls, but certainly they destroy the appetite of others who would like to join a free discussion.

I saw even an IM doing that ...

I am no expert at all of the From Gambit, I am currently trying to understand it, in a game with veteranmate.

Long time ago I read some book about the Bird, the verdict about the From Gambit was negative there (analysis however very short). Later I saw one, two games where Black castled 0-0-0 , sacrificed a knight, and achieved a very unclear position. I do not remember the games.

There are people who have tried to give good, helpful comments in this thread, though. I don't just want to complain about the bad. Also, obviously, I was glib with my comments regardling the Nf6 Nc3 variation at first when I thought it was a mistake that didn't address the threat against at all. I was part of the problem we're talking about and I am sorry about my tone earlier. I would also love to see good analysis happen on this forum but I understand it's a lot of work. Barring that I am seriously curious what resource there is out there that deals with the line or what the process should be to come to accurate conclusions about it so we might better help ourselves.

A good start would be IM Timothy Taylor's book on the Bird. A link to Amazon. Or another on the From's by FM Eric Schiller. Not many people writing about a dubious (disputable) gambit to a dubious (also disputable) opening, no?

Practically for us mortals, the best way is to play both sides of it more often in slow games. The tactical shots available on both sides can be calculated as you play the moves, but it'll eat lots of time. You could also trawl the interwebz for more patzer analysis, or plug the moves into an engine. But honestly speaking, nobody at our level knows, much less plays the theory. Any sort of home analysis would be a step above everyone else.

Thanks Remellion. I don't have the Taylor book but I understand he recommends the d4 Qd3 line which I thought was the mainline. Is Nc3 in that book at all? I had the Schiller book but I sold it. It was kind of awful and didn't hold up at all to computer analysis, plus I only remember it looking at the Lasker Variation which even I don't think is sound. I'm where I am with my home analysis, where I was commenting/complaining from earlier. I agree with you that's a step above for my playing level. The last time someone accepted my  From Gambit I completely creamed them, but I'd still like to know what's true and be prepared to scrape the best out of the position when I run into someone who knows the theory.

Eric Schiller is making money by writing many books, and he indeed achieved popularizing chess with it.

But none of his books is strong.