Open 1.f4 challengers?

I do play those games as well. But it gets to a point where you get bored.  I play : 1- b3, 1.b4, 1.c4...basically ALL of them. I enjoy 1.f4 due to it's rare appearence and it's strong lines, if played and timed right. If you do something wrong, yes, it will be your end!

1.e4 and 1.d4 are probably sound but why not play 1.f4 ?

The only reason a certain opening, or anything in life, is "dumb", is due to the fact that one does not understand or have a grasp on a concept. I'm not saying you went to any L.D. classes, but who knows? I'm not one to judge. I'm just saying never count out the unknown. You should become familiar with it. Then perhaps, but doubtful, you would understand its concept. I think you could better comprehend this if Marlee Matlin would explain it...

Then don't play it, not sure why you joined this thread to bash an oppening that has been around for over 150 years. Imagine someone ripping on the Sicilian Najdorf and how ridiculous they sound, you are doing the same thing.

High level players don't play the colle system or stonewall often either, those openings are not poor based on that merit.

Have you studied much about the Leningrad??  This is one of the mainlines...

If you don't like 1.f4, then don't play it.  Leave it for those of us who value it.  That is fair enough.  As for someone's post earlier about  playing a Stonewall and opening it up, that TOTALLY defeats the idea of the Stonewall :D.  The idea is to keep tension in the center and attack on the wings.  Often, however, I do get this pawn structure:

With this in mind, if an attack is brewing, I can often start allowing my opponent to gobble up my pawns and use those tempi to set up a nice attack.  That is why the Bird is a decent weapon.  It has lots of styles you can use, and if you understand the pawn themes, you can do quite well with it.  A lot of people don't understand the pawn dynamics behind the opening and falter right in the opening. 

Plz don't make us report you for trolling on this page.  If you have no real input, get off.

http://www.365chess.com/game.php?gid=3794660

Interesting - speaking of transpositions, this "Bird" flies right out of a Benko 1. g3 (great way to avoid From's Gambit, but still get some great Bird lines) and features e3 and g3.  Both players were above 2650.  

Another interesting note is that the position I supplied, according to 365chess.com, showed 8 games for White after Qe2 - 2 wins, and 6 draws.  That is VERY interesting.

Good, then if you don't have actual analysis, then please let this thread be.  However, considering your history, I don't believe you, so...let's give you a chance to prove me wrong.

I would be interested to see someone's take on the Polar Bear with e3. 

7.e3 looks too slow imo. White can play c2 Qc2/Nbd2 and threaten e4 in one go. Why take an extra turn to do that? More specifically what happens after 8.Qe2 Re8 threatening e5? Then I'd be nervous about the queen being on e2.

Maybe 9.d4 but then you're down so many tempi in a normal stonewall that the rook on e8 won't be a big deal. I think this is just some waiting move to see what Black will do.

this looks pretty solid to me for white. Black still has to prove his compensation for the pawn and the bishop pair. I do not understand why Kramnik played 10 Nc3 and 11 Qa4.

Or refuse the gambit with 6. Nc3 c6 7. d3 Ngf6 8. Bd2 Qb6 9. O-O-O. White does not have a lot, but still the bishop pair. I think this would now nicely fit Kramniks style.

As many readers know, I have been a long-time advocate of the Bird Variation of the Ruy Lopez for Black (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nd4). Recently I’ve started experimenting with Henry Bird’s other major opening legacy, the Bird Opening (1. f4).

I’m not planning to go off the deep end with this — I am only considering it as an occasional diversion from 1. e4 and 1. d4. For one thing, it’s hard to argue with statistics. According to ChessBase, White scores about 53% or 54% with those moves. With 1. f4, White scores only about 48%.

There are two times in life when you don’t want to score 48%: in an election (sorry, Mitt Romney!) or when playing White in chess.

On the other hand, statistics don’t really provide us understanding, and that’s really the goal in chess. If Bird’s Opening is bad, why is it bad? And are there lines that are more or less okay?

Now I’m no expert, having played (to date) only three tournament games with 1. f4. The first two games quickly transposed into something else. The first one went 1. f4 e5 2. e4, and we were in the familiar ground of the King’s Gambit (and I eventually won). The second went 1. f4 d5 2. Nf3 c5 3. e4!? and we were in the familiar (for me!) territory of the Bryntse Gambit (a game I eventually drew).

So it wasn’t until last month’s Western States Open that I got to play an authentic Bird’s Opening against IM Ed Formanek. He beat me in very instructive fashion, and in the process gave me some idea how White can get into trouble.

I’ll get to the Formanek game in a little while, but I’ll start by saying that one problem with the Bird is that it does not achieve what it’s supposed to achieve. If there is any point at all to playing f4 on the first move, it’s that you want to take control over the e5 square. And yet there are a variety of ways in which Black can frustrate this goal and get in the pawn break … e5.

First of all, Black can play 1. … e5 right away. As we know, that is From’s Gambit. But as noted above, it transposes into a King’s Gambit after2. e4, and I am willing to live with that.

A second, less well-known way in which Black can defeat White’s objective is my own pet line against the Bird, which I came up with back in 2000 or so. It could be called the “From Gambit Deferred.” After 1. f4 Nf6, many White players will continue 2. b3, intending to continue the plan of controlling the dark squares. I would then play 2. … d6 and then, after 3. Bb2, I would surprise White with 3. … e5!

Position after 3. ... e5. The From Gambit Deferred.

Unlike its better-known relative, which is a true gambit, the From Gambit Deferred is a gambit in name only. If White actually accepts the pawn, then Black is pretty close to winning by force. The position after 4. fe de 5. Bxe5? has only been seen three times in ChessBase. Interestingly, one of them was a game Szpisjak-Brooks from 1982, where Black was Michael Brooks, well-known American IM. So I’m not the first person to invent this line; perhaps it should be called the Brooks Gambit. After 5. … Ng4 Szpisjak continued 6. Bg3 Bd6 7. Nc3 Bxg3+ 8. hg Qd6 9. Ne4 Qd4 10. d3 f5 and Black wins material.

I played this idea twice against a class B player named Reuben Lenz and won both. He accepted the gambit the second time and the game went 4. fe de 5. Bxe5? Ng4 6. Bb2 Bd6 7. Nf3 Nxh2!

Position after 7. ... Nxh2.

If White takes either way, he gets mated with … Bg3+. Lenz soldiered on with 8. Kf2 Ng4+ 9. Kg1 Bg3 10. Rh5 Nf2 11. Qc1 (White’s pieces are fleeing to the far corners of the board!) 11. … f6 12. e3 Bg4 13. Rb5 a6 14. Rxb7 Qd5!

Position after 14. ... Qd5.

The hunt for White’s rook is only a sideshow. The real target is White’s king, which would perish after 15. Rb4 Qh5 16. Rxg4 Qh1 mate. This explains Lenz’s increasingly desperate moves, as the game concluded: 15. Rxb8+ Rxb8 16. Ne5 fe 17. Bc4 Qd6 resigns.

Well, this is great fun. In any case, it should convince you that 1. f4, 2. b3 and 3. Bb2 simply does not work as a way of preventing … e5.

For that reason, I made up my mind that after 1. f4 Nf6 I would not play 2. b3 but would instead play 2. Nf3. Only in case of 2. … d5 (or the reversed move order, 1. f4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6) would I continue with 3. b3. In that case I feel pretty good about White’s position. It’s basically a Queen’s Indian reversed where White has played a useful move, f4, with his extra tempo. I went to ChessBase and saw that GM Pavel Blatny has played this way a number of times.

But in my game against Formanek, I ran into the problem: What does White do if Black doesn’t cooperate by playing an early … d5? Mackenzie-Formanek went as follows:

1. f4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. b3?! (Playing this before Black has committed himself to … d5 is not recommended) Bg7 4. Bb2 O-O 5. e3 d6! (Sorry! No … d5 today!) 6. Be2 e5!

Position after 6. ... e5.

And once again Black has achieved his thematic break, … e5, with the utmost of ease. In this case it’s not a gambit, and it’s not even a pseudo-gambit. After 7. fe Ng4 the pawn on e5 is pinned, and so Black wins it back. Probably White should play this anyway, but I don’t see any problems for Black in this position. I played 7. O-O? ef 8. ef and suffered for a long time in a position where I was never able to generate any serious threats.

Interestingly, when I showed the game to Gjon Feinstein he knew all about this line and said it’s just good for Black. He didn’t think I made any serious mistakes after this, it was just a case of IM Formanek slowly and methodically increasing his positional bind.

But the picture is not all bleak for White. Gjon said that after 2. … g6 I just shouldn’t play 3. b3, the move that keeps getting White into trouble. After 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. O-O we get to a position where White is playing what Jonathan Rowson calls “zebra chess” — he’s waiting for Black to commit to either … d6 or … d5. If Black plays 6. … d6 now, we can play 7. d3 and work towards e4. If Black plays 6. … d5, we can either play 7. d3 or we can play a move that I think looks intriguing, 7. c4.

But that will be a subject of another post (maybe).

^ I knew I seen that somewhere before. Mentioning the Bryntse Gambit, it could only be from one source. Word for word copy-and-paste of http://www.danamackenzie.com/blog/?p=1824.

yes it was

The problem with that post is that b3 does not always fit in well with From's Gambit.  As a matter of fact, I cannot really even think of one time it is good.  My buddy Linkspringger played a d4-c4 pawn structure, which before I thought was a bit weird, but it makes sense.  The idea is not always to retain the pawn...this type of thinking can get White into trouble.  The idea IS that you have an extra pawn, and you have potential to retain it.  If you have to return it, then so what.  You have an even position, but you are in territory that you are familiar with.

I also understand the concept of what Formanek is saying, but once again, there are only 2 other options from move 1 - 1. Nf3 (probably best) and 1. d4.  I would rather play the White side of 1. Nf3 e5 than 1. d4 e5 - that is my preference, as I would prefer to have a strong pawn sitting comfortably on the d4 square.  That boils down to preference.

So, my take on the article - why are we discussing b3?  I view that as inferior and TOO principled for something like From's Gambit.  In principle, aiming a bishop at e5 is great, but perhaps it neglects the actual dynamics of the position.  I remember seeing a game like this with reversed colors where Anthony Miles was playing Owen's Defense, and he treated it as a gambit, sacrificing his f5, e6 and even the d7 pawn for development!! (The White player refused the d7 pawn - you can find the game in Bauer's 1...b6 book).  

I guess I will sum this up and AGREE with your post - f4, b3 and Bb2 do not prevent e5.  But, I dont think c4, g3 and Bg2 prevent d5 either :D.  I don't think that is the point of the opening.

Personally, From's Gambit HARDLY ever needs to see b3/Bb2.  It is way too dogmatic and neglects what the position really needs.  I think Linkspringger's e3-d4-c4 pawn structure is much more in line with what the position calls for.  When I first saw him play it, I shook my head...how???? But seriously, I think he really understood the pawn dynamics the position called for. 

Yes. But we are not talking about the From gambit here.

How do you know, when your opponent plays 1...Nf6 that he will follow up with ...d6 and ...e5 ? I played 1...Nf6 twice and each time I saw 2.b3 (which is a logical continuation).

Iron, the point is that 2...d6 and 3...e5 is STRONG!  That is why the better idea may very well be 2. Nf3 against 1...Nf6.  The system is a part of the ...Nf6 From's Gambit, and it is linked to From's theory - the whole idea of the ...d6/...e5 pawn chain a Bird player needs to be aware of.

Is 1...c5 good against 1.f4?  It's my move of choice because of the asymmetry. 1.f4,c5 2.Nf3,Nf6 is usually how things go, too many unforced permutations after this to list lines further.