I stand corrected. Forgot about the horde of authors who make money selling... gimmicky... opening books. Although I don't see many on the Bird/From's. (Sokolsky, Grob etc I've seen plenty. Own one on the Hippo myself too.)
Open 1.f4 challengers?
Sort:
I've played 1.f4 55 times in over-the-board tournament games. I have just 19 losses with it and many of these losses are against higher rated players, whom I would have lost with any opening.
I love Bird's Opening. I also have a copy of Tim Taylor's book on this opening and it's excellent.
noleryer, you don't get the point of anything, you are just a parrot.
no, he's a circle.
schlechter55 wrote:
tmkroll wrote:
The deeper I look at the positions after Nf3 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.
Thank you for being honest. Yes, negative ppl do ruin the experience for the others who actually want to learn, or give feedback. Not everything has to be positive. Constructive criticism is needed. Not your mama's back-wood ghetto trash talk. I mean, really? Sure, if I know you, and over the board, yes with friends, depending who it is, we trash talk. But in an environment where ppl are trying to get information and have questions, I believe they at least should get respect to them.
I started playing the Bird's opening a while ago. I'm not the best at it, but I have won more games with it. Due to the lack of information provided for that particular opening, I began to study it. I see some flaws, but I also see the beauty in it when played properly. The books give it a bad rep, this is true. I believe it's not given the respect it deserves. Thank you for everyone who has been respectable in this post, and I apologize if I went off the handle to a certain someone.
noleryer wrote:
f4 sucks, I honestly dont get the point of it.
Well, let me give you a little clue. There are actually many different ways to play the bird. 1.f4, later is used as a sacrice pawn to clear a path for your rook down the isle after 0-0. That's just a taste of one of it's functions. I'm not gonna fill in any more blanks, but from there alone, you should see many more opportunities of game play.
17 move 1.f4 checkmate coments?
veteranmate wrote:
17 move 1.f4 checkmate coments?
That really is just a transposed stonewall
GainCity wrote:
veteranmate wrote:
17 move 1.f4 checkmate coments?
That really is just a transposed stonewall
How so?
Alright fellas, I'm gonna create a different post for the victories since this one is getting pretty filled up. I'll let everyone know when it's done. I'll call it: veteranmate's 1.f4 games
This is the stonewall attack
And this is a position that can arise if too many poor pawn breaks are made
ok its made. as you can see, players of different levels all have played and lost. So not only "weak" players have gone down.
veteranmate wrote:
ok its made. as you can see, players of different levels all have played and lost. So not only "weak" players have gone down.
I think the consensus with the stonewall is that it beats low level players proficently, and higher levels players less frequently, which is actually solidified in my post, allthough the argument can be made that I played it like a begginer, that was my first time playing the stonewall and it blew up terribly for me.
GainCity, thanks for the input. Sure, stonewall position has been set, but opening with f4 wasn't intended for the stonewall, even though, after some game play, it did seem the best method. Look at it as a back door. Getting to a certain postion, from starting in a completely different position, isn't all that easy, especially if you have no other choice. Like my other favorit, Queen's Gambit. 1.d4 2.c4 3.e3...you can geter by playing 1.c4 first. But, playing 1.c4, is that still not an English opening? Or if 1.d4 is not met with 1...d5, and still playing 2.c4, still a form of the Queen's Gambit? It may also be called the Catalan. But creating the structure, is the importance.
GainCity wrote:
veteranmate wrote:
ok its made. as you can see, players of different levels all have played and lost. So not only "weak" players have gone down.
I think the consensus with the stonewall is that it beats low level players proficently, and higher levels players less frequently, which is actually solidified in my post, allthough the argument can be made that I played it like a begginer, that was my first time playing the stonewall and it blew up terribly for me.
veteranmate's 1.f4 games is my other forum, check it out
It also seems to me that this thread follows the theme of posting a white win using the stonewall attack and using it to prove how 1.f4 is a good opening, which is misleading. The stonewall is a good opening, especially against the level of players that some of your games were played against. 1.f4/ Bird's opening can be taken down and for the sake of equality I will post a win as black against Bird's opening.
for those who don't know, IM Timothy Taylor wrote a book on 1. f4 and has also played it himself.
So, in your definition, what makes a Bird's opening v.s. a stonewall?
veteranmate wrote:
So, in your definition, what makes a Bird's opening v.s. a stonewall?
The same difference that distinguishes the english from the queen's gambit. The king's indian is played with many different move orders, but the mainline is 1...g6. 1...d6 is not neccesarily the pirc as g6 can be played on move 2. Bird's opening is as white played in the game above and if you did a quick google search you could probably find theory on it, but Bird's opening is characterized by the first handful of moves by white in my game.
Not many people writing about a dubious (disputable) gambit to a dubious (also disputable) opening, no?
I am forced to disagree. For instance
http://www.newinchess.com/Shop/ProductDetails.aspx?ProductID=1225
(and I'm not talking of 1.g4, 1.b4 or the Parham but only because I fear the trolls)