in your*
Indeed. I've killed many a bird who tried to fly without developing his "wings" ;)
1. f4 e5 is equal, and actually, many professionals will state that White retains a slight advantage, as he can also give back the pawn to complete development.
With that said, as with all openings, White must be prepared. I presume that if you play 1. e4, you don't like to face the Marshall Countergambit either? We cannot run from an opening strictly because it seems scary - we must seek to understand it.
If we want to discuss the basics behind From's Gambit, we must look at the sub-variations that stem from the main-line (and sidelines, but we will save them for later):
1. f4 e5 2. fxe5 d6 3. exd6 Bxd6 and we are at From's Proper.
White SHOULD play 4. Nf3 - it is technically the only reasonable move, but still a good one, and Black has a myriad of responses to this. The main responses are ...g5, ...Nf6, ...Bg4, ...Nc6 - presumably there are others, but not that I really see that often. There are even offbeat answers, such as ...b6, but they don't apply much pressure on White.
So, in each line, White has reasonable alternatives (not alternative) to reach a good position.
Dionysus_god, my challenge to you is to provide lines that actually prove that From's is beneficial for Black. I even have anti-From's lines in my repertoire, if I so chose to engage in them, which doesn't even allow you to enter the main-line From's Gambit.
So, perhaps you can showcase your idea(s) that make Black's position better (in your opinion), and we can begin discussion?
With that said, as with all openings, White must be prepared. I presume that if you play 1. e4, you don't like to face the Marshall Countergambit either? We cannot run from an opening strictly because it seems scary - we must seek to understand it.
If we want to discuss the basics behind From's Gambit, we must look at the sub-variations that stem from the main-line (and sidelines, but we will save them for later):
1. f4 e5 2. fxe5 d6 3. exd6 Bxd6 and we are at From's Proper.
White SHOULD play 4. Nf3 - it is technically the only reasonable move, but still a good one, and Black has a myriad of responses to this. The main responses are ...g5, ...Nf6, ...Bg4, ...Nc6 - presumably there are others, but not that I really see that often. There are even offbeat answers, such as ...b6, but they don't apply much pressure on White.
So, in each line, White has reasonable alternatives (not alternative) to reach a good position.
Dionysus_god, my challenge to you is to provide lines that actually prove that From's is beneficial for Black. I even have anti-From's lines in my repertoire, if I so chose to engage in them, which doesn't even allow you to enter the main-line From's Gambit.
So, perhaps you can showcase your idea(s) that make Black's position better (in your opinion), and we can begin discussion?
achja, I would agree that technically, 1. f4 is not THE best move on the board - but there are also people who are of the belief that 1. f4 is a perfectly acceptable move - not the best, but not a terrible one either. For the two main weaknesses that White incurs (lack of open lines for piece development and slightly exposed king), White also fights for the center, saves tempi in lines where he would have to relocate the knight to push the f-pawn, and he also engages in a position that he knows theoretically better than his opponent, in many situations. I have played against opponents who have chosen lines that are considered theoretically best, yet they had little idea of how to handle these positions. Quoting one line in a book is not a good concept - I can also quote Reinfeld, who stated that the Berlin Defense is a very poor choice for Black, and he offered the queen trade line - the one that is so popular, and the one that inspired all the d3 lines these days.
Without simply quoting a one-liner, maybe provide actual positions, and we can discuss them. This should make the thread more interesting.
I will follow up later with some of my own games, with ideas for discussion.
Without simply quoting a one-liner, maybe provide actual positions, and we can discuss them. This should make the thread more interesting.
I will follow up later with some of my own games, with ideas for discussion.
I played 1.f4 for 6 years OTB, and I climbed from 1700 to 2100 with this opening.
But this opening is horrible, and it's definitely a mistake to play it :
1) Above 2000 elo, you don't have any hope to get an advantage out of the opening.
2) You lose an important time to learn a real opening, and when you can't win with the Bird anymore, you realise you just lost a few years of opening experience.
3) Like all the systems, you always meet the same type of position, and that slows down your progression.
But this opening is horrible, and it's definitely a mistake to play it :
1) Above 2000 elo, you don't have any hope to get an advantage out of the opening.
2) You lose an important time to learn a real opening, and when you can't win with the Bird anymore, you realise you just lost a few years of opening experience.
3) Like all the systems, you always meet the same type of position, and that slows down your progression.
Immediately after seeing the post, I tried playing 1f4. I didn't know what to do, but it was fun :D
http://en.lichess.org/JsLWzqRHUCt0
http://en.lichess.org/JsLWzqRHUCt0
@BirdBrainf4 #14
I'm just quoting GM Ulf Andersson.
IM Axel Smith, in the book I mentioned, writes (I just looked it up again) that this remark is maybe a bit over the top, but he makes a good point.
The point being that 1.f2f4 weakens the a7-g1 diagonal, weakens the king position, weakens the 2nd rank for the endgame, and it makes d2d4 less attractive.
Personally speaking, I do see 1.f4 being played by rather strong players, and they have good success with it.
What's more, several top GM do play 1.b3 every now and then, sometimes in combination with the move f2f4.
Then there's the Dutch defense (basically reversed Bird opening), which is played by GM Reinderman (A 2500+ GM), with black, and he sometimes plays 1.f4.
GM David Smerdon actually played Stonewall, the "a positional, ugly" Bird/Dutch.
He wrote an interesting goodbye letter to the Stonewall (quite entertaining) :)
www.chess.com/blog/smurfo/an-open-letter-to-the-stonewall
But to summarize : 1.f4 has apparently no refutation. If GM Reinderman gets away with it against other masters, then more work might need to be done on refuting it, or making the refutation public worldwide (balloons with text maybe ?).
I'm just quoting GM Ulf Andersson.
IM Axel Smith, in the book I mentioned, writes (I just looked it up again) that this remark is maybe a bit over the top, but he makes a good point.
The point being that 1.f2f4 weakens the a7-g1 diagonal, weakens the king position, weakens the 2nd rank for the endgame, and it makes d2d4 less attractive.
Personally speaking, I do see 1.f4 being played by rather strong players, and they have good success with it.
What's more, several top GM do play 1.b3 every now and then, sometimes in combination with the move f2f4.
Then there's the Dutch defense (basically reversed Bird opening), which is played by GM Reinderman (A 2500+ GM), with black, and he sometimes plays 1.f4.
GM David Smerdon actually played Stonewall, the "a positional, ugly" Bird/Dutch.
He wrote an interesting goodbye letter to the Stonewall (quite entertaining) :)
www.chess.com/blog/smurfo/an-open-letter-to-the-stonewall
But to summarize : 1.f4 has apparently no refutation. If GM Reinderman gets away with it against other masters, then more work might need to be done on refuting it, or making the refutation public worldwide (balloons with text maybe ?).
Thanks to ChessExplained, I sometimes play the funky Nh6 when I encounter the Bird's.
I've played Nh6 before too, but it was thanks to a book with a large section dedicated to the opening.
Can't recall the name of the book though. It was read online, and physical copies of books are obviously far preferable to any serious reader.
Can't recall the name of the book though. It was read online, and physical copies of books are obviously far preferable to any serious reader.
If I had a reputation against it, I wouldn't be so stupid to publish it and I figure many people feel similar about that :D
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.