Quote:


I must admit I don't find this terribly persuasive for Black.  I've encountered a number of times with White just recently, and I think if there's any difficulty for White it's in determining which line to adopt, because there are several that seem okay.  Nowhere is White going to get a whopping advantage, but I think Black is hard pressed to reach equality.

More often than not, play reaches a reversed Classical Dutch where White has an extra tempo.

1 f4 d5 2 Nf3 g6 3 e3 Bg7 4 Be2 c5 5 0-0 Nc6 6 d3 Nf6

All pretty standard; Black can play almost any order of moves 3-6 depending on how terrifying s/he finds White's b4.  Here, White has a variety of options: 7 Nc3, 7 Qe1, 7 a4, and 7 Ne5.  I haven't tried this last yet, and have only played a4 after 7 Qe1 (7 Qe1 0-0 8 a4 Qc7 9 Qh4--though maybe this isn't right...), but I have tried  7 Nc3 b5 8 Qe1, after which my opponent played the weakening 8 ... h5.  More interesting from Black's point of view is 7 Qe1 0-0 8 Qh4 b5!? 9 Nbd2 c4 10 a3 Qb6 11 d4 b4 12 Ne5 bxa3 13 Rxa3 (13 bxa3? Nxd4! 14 exd4 Qxd4 and Black is winning) Nb4 14 Bd1 Bf5 15 g4 Bxc2 16 g5 Bxd1 17 Rxd1 with a difficult, but vaguely equal position...

Quote:



Yes, but Black has a good move order: 1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 g6! 3.e3 Bg7 and no b4  (what you named b5!?)

Dmitry Oleinikov
an author of  "The Bird" training CD (ChessBase)

Quote:


Is this TN back-pedalling on the From?

Quote:


Or better yet The Lame Duck line. 

TN

Well!!

After 13..Bd7 I will simply play 14.Bf2 and I stand by my view that White has a clear advantage. Incidentally, I talked with Kotronias after the game, he agrees with me <or did>.

This line is tricky: f4 e5, fe Nc6, Nf3 g5, h3 d6, d4 de, d5 e4, dxc6!? and I do not think that White should be worse after these complications, - I may post again tomorrow after i have examined this line in more detail!
                                         

Quote:


Well yes, the Bird is best used from time to time, but I take issue with your dubious sign for the From's as you have failed to address the improvement I put forward in your Kotronias game, after which it is White that is struggling.

You have also failed to show anything convincing against the Neo From, both in this thread and the one in the Flank section. You claimed a clear advantage based on a game with a local IM, who clearly despite his title did not know the theory very well: 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 g5 4.h3 d6 5.d4 dxe5 6.d5 e4! [Not 6...Nce7 7.e4 as in your game with the local IM which I agree clearly favors white] and if anything the complications favor Black. 

Are you sure that your 1.e4 prep is the only reason for abandoning the Bird. Be honest now, you can confide in us.    

Tops

Postscript: Don't feel left out of the loop HGman, I haven't forgotten you, in fact I eagerly await your hopefully substantive response to my previous post.  

Quote:


I have already explained at length when I think it is appropriate to consider playing a Gambit continuation in another thread, I challenge you to find it. 

In case you are unable to find it, here is the short version. 1.f4 voluntarily compromises white's own kings position on the e1-h4 diagonal, so much so in fact that after 1...e5!? White need only cooperate with 2.g4 allowing the now infamous two move checkmate. When the opponent self inflicts weaknesses we are well within or rights to try to exploit them as energetically as possible, if that entails a gambit, then so be it.

HGman may not think that 13...Bd7 below is a significant improvement on the T. Rendle vs V. Kotronias game, but it is. In fact HGman doesn't think very highly of the From's at all, to each his own I guess. 

1.f4 e5 2.fe d6 3.ed Bxd6 4.nf3 g5 5.g3 g4 6.Nh4 Ne7 7.d4 Nc6 8.c3 Ng6 9.Nxg6 hg 10.Qd3 Bf5 11.e4 Qe7 12.Bg2 0-0-0 13.Be3 Bd7! 

Here HGman agrees that 13...Bd7! is better than Kotronias' 13...Be6?!, but thinks that White still has all the chances. Unfortunately he does not supply us with White's 14th move, which will have to address the extremely awkward threat of Rxh2 followed Bxg3+. 

In the absence of anything substantive from HGman I will supply a couple of illustrative games that underscore White's difficulties in this line:

[Event "NWAPA Rector Cup"]
[Site "St Petersburg RUS"]
[Date "2005.??.??"]
[White "Pogosian,Vl"]
[Black "Solovjov,S"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2204"]
[BlackElo "2456"]
[ECO "A02"]
[Round "4"]

1. f4 e5 2. fxe5 d6 3. exd6 Bxd6 4. Nf3 g5 5. g3 g4 6. Nh4 Ne7 7. d4 Ng6 8. Nxg6 hxg6 9. Qd3 Nc6 10. c3 Bf5 11. e4 Qe7 12. Bg2 O-O-O 13. Be3 Bd7 14. Nd2 Rxh2 15. Rxh2 Bxg3+ 16. Bf2 Bxh2 17. O-O-O Bf4 18. Kb1 g3 19. Bxg3 Ne5 20. dxe5 Ba4 21. Qf3 Bxd2 22. b3 Bb5 23. c4 Bc6 24. Qf2 Bg5 25. Rd5 Kb8 26. Bf4 Bxd5 27. exd5 Bxf4 28. Qxf4 Re8 29. d6 cxd6 30. exd6 Qe1+ 31. Kb2 0-1

[Event "?"]
[Site "corr"]
[Date "1993.??.??"]
[White "Klausen,T "]
[Black "Wisloff,S "]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A02"]
[Round "?"]

1. f4 e5 2. fxe5 d6 3. exd6 Bxd6 4. Nf3 g5 5. g3 g4 6. Nh4 Ne7 7. d4 Ng6 8. Nxg6 hxg6 9. Qd3 Nc6 10. c3 Bf5 11. e4 Qe7 12. Bg2 O-O-O 13. Be3 Bd7 14. e5 Bxe5 
15. dxe5 Nxe5 16. Qe2 Rhe8 17. Nd2 Nf3+ 18. Nxf3 Bb5 0-1 And this was a correspondence game for crying out loud.

I gather HGman likes 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.Nf3 dxe5 4.e4/Nc3, but despite Danielsen's occasional espousal of it, it amounts to nothing more than an inferior Kings Gambit Declined for white. 

It is important to realise that a gambit opening for Black that equalises is somewhat of a victory for him. However a gambit opening for White that at best equalises is not considered such a big achievement, as we expect a bit more from the white pieces. 

In light of the above, it would be nice if HGman and others would stop harping on comparisons between White and Black gambits such as the KG and From's for instance. Such comparisons are more or less absurd, it would be much more compelling to compare like with like.

Conclusion: The From's is most likely the reason that the Bird's Opening isn't more popular, especially at the lower levels and I don't think this is likely to change anytime soon.  

Toppylov

Postscript: Will we get to see HGman's trademark back pedalling in his next post I wonder.  

On the contrary.  If this were a website devoted exclusively to existing chess theory, then we wouldn't need to discuss anything and these threads would be rather dry.  By avoiding memorized moves allows for greater creative play earlier in the opening.  I suppose we can all go back to deciding what White's best 24th move is in some beaten-to-death variation of the Grunfeld, but I much prefer being out of book by move 6.

To discuss this on a website devoted to chess theory means we can actually be creative rather than draw from literature we have at hand.  This website is designed explicitly for this kind of discussion.  I'd rather build than re-iterate...

The draw of the Bird for me is the ability to play chess from a very early stage instead of reeling out twenty memorized moves.  I'm not sure that the Bird offers White much in the way of advantage--though I think there is some--but the possibility definitely exists to outplay your opponent in a position you find more comfortable.

And I would disagree that the Bird is drab--the Dutch is one of the more dynamic openings against 1 d4 with Black.  I don't see how that would result in being boring with White...

Quote:


My instinct is that the From is only a problem for the Bird insofar as many of its practitioners are looking for a relatively closed position out of the opening and the From opens everything up.  That said, I don't understand why TN would scoff at the King's Gambit, but then happily give up two central pawns for a flank pawn in the From!      

Moreover, I just don't think the From is very good for Black.  13 ... Bd7 is certainly an improvement on 13 ... Be6, but I don't see how White is in anymore trouble.  Black was simply lost of 13 ... Be6; after 13 ... Bd7, there's still plenty of play in the position, but I still think White has all the chances.

Incidentally, there are all kinds of transpositional possibilities here, many of which take the game off in a variety of directions.  Black can play 11 ... Bd7, which creates an altogether different kind of game...

The book won't be published until November, so I haven't seen it.  I'm almost sorry to see it, though, since I've always enjoyed working on the opening, and finding my opponents ill-prepared...

regarding this bird's attack  , and more specifically the 1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 Bg4... no one here suggested the 3.Ne5 Bf5 4.c4 dxc4 5.Na3. White seems to be slightly better in this position. Thoughts ?

Quote:


Tom: after 14 ... f5 15 Nd2 Qf7 16 0-0-0 Bxa2, doesn't 17 e5 just win outright?  Easy for me to say this months after the fact, but I've been giving the From some attention recently, and I revisited your game.   

How can Black improve on Kotronias's play?

I don't know, I'm afraid. All I know is that Byron told me he commissioned it a few months ago, so I'm guessing it will be out about the turn of the year, all being well.

Following my last post, I learn that Everyman are to bring out a book on the Bird's by American IM Tim Taylor. Should be interesting.

Quote:


Can anyone tell what is wrong with 2. d3 or 2. g3 after 1. f4 d5 ? The problems are not immediately obvious to a Bird novice!

Incidentally, I, too, would be very interested in seeing a careful treatise on the Bird.   

After looking over the position some more, I think that TomR is likely correct that White's best option after 1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 Bg4 3.e3 Nd7 is 4.d4 followed by 5.Bd3 or 5.Be2 (since Black has forever given up Bc8-a6 ideas, it is not clear that d3 is a better square for the B than e2), transposing into a Stonewall structure for White.  Although I called White's position "insipid" in my last post, I did not mean to imply that White is actually worse and I doubt that he is.  In fact, the word "insipid" is probably not particularly apt.

I play the Stonewall as Black from time to time and usually Black does not play d5 (thus completing the "Stonewall") until either White has commited to the kingside fianchetto or White has played Pe2-e3 with the White B still on c1.  But this is mostly because there are some Bd3+Bf4 set-ups that are quite dangerous for Black due to White's ability to open lines on the kingside with a quick Pg2-g4.  (Serper-Sequera, San Felipe 1998 is a good example of the dangers lurking in such positions.)  This same concern would not appear to apply to White's Stonewall setup here because (i) Black's Bc8 has gone to g4, not f5; and (ii) White is, of course, a tempo up on the normal Black Stonewall position, making any hyperagressive tries by Black much more dangerous. 

So I would say that this is actually a quite decent Stonewall position for White. Although Black's position is obviously not bad, his early Bg4 may prevent him from playing some of the most promising plans, at least without a loss of tempo.   It doesn't seem that significant that Black has not yet committed to c7-c5, because Black will likely want to play that move anyway and will find it hard to generate play on the queenside if he doesn't.  And if Black goes for a kingside fianchetto (the most popular set-up against the Stonewall by far), the move Bc8-g4 appears to be premature.  If Black goes for a Nh6 setup (analogous to a Nh3 variation against the Stonewall for White), then Black's light-square B really belongs on f5 rather than g4 (the whole point of this set-up being to exchange White's Bd3 by playing Bf5 without allowing White to ruin Black's pawn structure), and if Black goes for a Nf6 set-up then the Bg4 may actually be slightly misplaced (Bg5 is not considered a promising move for White in similar positions against a Black Stonewall set-up).

In my database, White scores 12/24 or 50% from the position after 4.d4 despite being outrated by an average of 55 pts, which is not bad.  Of those games, Berkvens-Fressinet, WCh under-18 Oropesa 1999 showed some very thematic Stonewall play by White in the opening.  Although Berkvens eventually lost, he seemed to have a nice edge from move 17 on and was probably winning at some pt around move 28 before Fressinet swindled him.  Also interesting for its early kingside aggression by White is Williams-Palliser, Smith & Williamson 1999, although Black's 11...h6? against an attacker like Williams seems somewhat akin to waving a red cape at a bull. 

I suspect that the chief danger of this Stonewall set-up is that, if you only play the Dutch Leningrad and not the Dutch Stonewall as Black, you may not be as familiar with the typical strategies in Stonewall positions (which tend to be quite strategic in nature).  However, it is also possible that your opponent will not be a 1.d4 player who understands how to play against a Stonewall structure.  For anyone who is interested in learning more about such things, I can recommend Jacob Aagaard's "Dutch Stonewall" as an excellent source of explanations of the relevant strategies and piece set-ups. 

      - Geof Strayer

I have experimented with ways of avoiding 2..Bg4 after d5 but they are far from convincing. THe critical line must be 2.Nf3 and 3.e3 then after 3...Nd7 White can probably play 4.d4, preventing e5, and planning to follow up with h3 next move. I find it very hard to believe that this position can be worse for White, although proving an advantage for White could also be problematic. 
I am going to have another look at this line to try and improve upon it, but in the meantime i'm open to suggestions!

"saying they would be interested"
I am. I know, that Rolf Schwarz wrote a book on the Bird in the sixties and Taimanov worte one on the Dutch and the Bird in the eighties, but I am sure they must be updated.
The books on the Leningrad and on the Classical Dutch have done well, so sure there must be a market for the Bird!?

Quote:


Do you by any chance have any intentions to write a book on the Bird's? I am most interested to read it!

Failing which are there any works you can recommend for a Bird's beginner?

Yesterday 1.f4 claimed its 1st GM victim (at my hands that is!). I won a reversed Leningrad position against the Russian GM Alexander Chernaiev in the last round of the Hastings International Congress.

1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 Bg4 does indeed prevent a reversed Leningrad but as MNb said e3 and h3 is logical and should give White some advantage.
If you are desperate for a reverse Leningrad you could try 2.d3 and only then Nf3, after which you will be able to meet ...Bg4 with Nbd2. However I am not convinced 2.d3 is best against other move orders so I would recommend 2.Nf3 Bg4 3.e3.

P.S. I'm glad to see this is now the most replied to post on the DD section of the forum! Thanks every1 for you interest!

1.f4 d5 2.kf3 og4 makes reversed Leningrad impossible. What do you play then?

Quote:

Yes, he does, but I have him as a source for some of the material I have in my notes and didn't want to fail to credit anyone.

As to 4.h3 lines, I have written down....
4.h3 d6 5.d4 e4
4.h3 d6 5.d4 h6
4.h3 d6 5.d3 h6/g4
All as being playable for Black. There are a number of games in the database covering these lines, but I'm not sure how improtant they are.

I do remember that alot of the interest in these lines came from an Australian chess forum (chesschat?), where a substantial debate was broiling over the problems with the 4.d4 lines (which seemed to be the most popular OTB).

Wow, so many posts to reply to, better get started then.

After f4 b6, d3 Bb7, e4 then d5 is sensible (though i'm not so sure about an early f5) but white can always go e5 and claim a slight space advantage. The question is whether you would be happy to play this position as White. Personally I would.
Well after 1.f4 e5, 2.fe d6, 3.ed Bxd6, 4.nf3 g5, 5.g3 is the best move. I'm not sure White has any edge after 5.d4 g4 6.Ne5 Bxe5 7.dxe5 Qxd1+. ok now f4 f5. 2.e4 fe 3.d3 ed 4.Bxd3 Nf6 5.g4 d5 -hmm, i'm sure there is supposed to be something here somewhere, i'll have to come back to this another time. In the meanwhile 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g4 looks dangerous. Glenn Snow's suggestions also seems very sensible.
ok. next. 1.f4 e5 2.fe Nc6 3.Nf3 g5 and here I like 4.h3!? e.g. d6 5.d4 de 6.d5 Ne7 7.e4 With an extremely comfortable position for White.
Lastly. I'm sure 1.f4 e5 2.d3 is perfectly playable, but since the From should be unsound then why not just take the pawn?

For Black, the Neo-From is perhaps an even better Bird-killer.

1.f4 e4
2.fxe5 Nc6

One continuation from my pile of Bird notes (from a brief daliance I had with it last year):

3.Nf3 g5
4.d4 g4
5.Bg5 Be7
6.Bxe7 Qxe7
7.d5 gxf3
8.dxc6 fxg2
9.Bxg2 Qh4+
10.Kf1 Qf4+
11.Ke1 dxc6
-+

Possible improvements/alternates do exist for White. Specifically I have notes on various 4.h3 lines (which don't work much better than the above) and also 7.Nd2 lines (which seems to offer the prospect of equality for White ).

I'm sure there are other lines and improvements to be found but that's what's on the top of my stack of papers on the Bird.

I feel the Neo-From offers Black a strong, yet somewhat uncommon line against the Bird. If White does not play with great precision, Black will enjoy a quick and smashing victory. Even with precise play by White, Black has solid play if not near certain equality.

My sources for the lines include work by Keith Hayward, David Flude among others, as well as my own work and refinements. I don't follow the Bird much, so my apologies if some recent game has refuted the Neo-From in the last year. If that's the case just ignore my ramblings

Hi,
     What about 1.f4 f5 2.e4 fe4 3.Nc3!? Nf6 4.g4!? of course its usually played from blacks side so is the pawn on f4 rather than f2/f7 helpful or not?


Regards

Quote:


Just to play devil's advocate, can't Black try an early 3 ... f5?  Or 3 ... d5?  Or else e6/Bc5/Ne7/0-0/f5?  It seems as though Black can exert some uncomfortable early pressure on White's center.   

I don't think White's position is bunched by a long way, but the earlier post was looking for ways to get take White out of his repertoire...

ok, lots to deal with here...

I thought that 1.f4 f5 2. e4 fe 3.d3 de 4. Bxd3 Nf6 5.g4 was winning for White. I have played this in blitz and won every time.

ok... 1.f4 d6 is sensible but the simple 2.d3 is the most flexible reply. The idea is that next move you will play Nf3 and you can then meet Bg4 with Nbd2.

I haven't yet faced 1...b6 but as Black is equal after 1.b3 f5 i see no reason to worry, 1.f4 b6 2.d3 Bb7 3.e4 seems to keep a slight spatial edge for White.

P.S. i would be happy to play John Coz in an f4 f5 game... so long as I have the White pieces!

2 e4!? My word. According to my newly-acquired Oxford Companion to Chess this is only truly a Swiss Gambit if it goes on 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 g4!? and, hey, why not? I remember losing to a 12 year old Stuart Conquest from this position in about 15 moves once (with d4 in instead of f4, natch).

Is f4 all that much use in a reversed From? After 1 f4 e5 2 fxe5 d6 3 exd6 Bxd6 4 Nf3 Nf6 Black quite often goes Bf5/g4/h3, surely? So the extra tempo is blocking that bishop a bit - what is it gaining in return?

Hmm - 1 f4 f5: I quite like it. I wonder if TomR would be up for a partie fixe in the next Barbican2-Perceptron 4NCL clash?!

Although I have played the Pirc for years - and I love the Yrjola and Tella book to which you refer - I can't believe that the best Black has against the Bird is to offer White the chance to transpose to this very dangerous system!

White is doing very well in the Austrian at the moment, especially in the lines with 5...0-0 and then either the main lines with 6.Bd3 or the very dangerous 6.Be3!?  Of course black can play 5...c5(!) but he must be prepared for a semi-forced draw in the 6.Bb5+ line, and White has several ways to try for an advantage along the way here, some of which are underestimated both by Yrjola/Tella and Alburt/Chernin in Pirc Alert! 

Personally I quite like the idea of 1.f4 b6!? if only to get White away from lines he will have played 100 times if he is a regular Bird player.

As long as Black is prepared to defend aganst the Grand Prix Attack, though, he may do better to play 1...c5 2.Nf3 (2.e4 d5!) 2...g6 3.e4 Bg7.  [Note that reaching this position via a Bird move order cuts out White's option in the 'standard' GPA to play 1.e4 c5 2.f4 g6 3.d4!?]

Quote:


Hardly best play by Black, but the Swiss Gambit does look like a bit of fun--and I like White's king's rook's potential after h4-h5.  Here are a couple of quick miniatures found online.  One from Bird himself, the other a more recent effort.  Black can do better, of course...

[Event "Vienna"]
[Site "Vienna"]
[Date "1873.07.21"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Bird,Henry Edward"]
[Black "Gelbfuhs,Oscar"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "A02"]
1.f4 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3.d3 exd3 4.Bxd3 Nf6 5.Nf3 e6 6.Ng5 g6 7.h4 Bh6 8.h5 Bxg5 
9.fxg5 Nd5 10.hxg6 Qe7 11.Rxh7 Rxh7 12.gxh7 Qb4+ 13.Kf1 Qh4 14.Bg6+ Ke7 15.Qh5  1-0

[Event "Mos Craciun op"]
[Site "Romania"]
[Date "2000.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Sorbun,Cristinel"]
[Black "Uta,Adeline"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "A02"]
1.f4 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3.d3 exd3 4.Bxd3 Nf6 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Ng5 h6 7.Bg6+  1-0

Quote:


This has to rank in my Top 5 lists of posts!  Ironic (to me anyway) that some of the funniest posts (intentional no doubt) are also by some of the strongest players here.  Maybe 1...f5 against 1.f4 should be called the Parodox Defence.  Of course 1...f5 is playable.  I mean just look how weakening 1.f4 is.  

Quote:


Congratulations!  And I guess it says something about the subjective nature of chess, but I really like the kinds of positions that one typically sees in these lines.  Perhaps, though, there's something to be said for keeping quiet about the Bird!  Surely its "unusualness" is part of the appeal...

One of the things I've noticed from this very interesting thread (and the parallel thread on the Flank Openings discussion board) is that White has a number of different resources available to him.

TomR has done a nice job of suggesting a variety of alternatives to the various Bird-killing ideas put forward.  Does the Bird win outright and nobody knows about it?  No.  Has it been refuted?  No.  Does it create some intriguing positions that are a little different from standard e4 and d4 openings?  Yes.  And it strikes me that this has some appeal.  It also seems fair to say that White can eek some small advantage through careful play.  There do seem to be instances where White is better served avoiding a Reversed Leningrad--or at least not being dogmatic about insisting on a particular set-up, but this is the case in any opening.  In terms of practical chances over the board (or even correspondence chess, given the relative dirth of published material), 1 f4 seems to have a lot to offer.  Given its relative obscurity, how many opponents really have a polished line all worked out to combat the occasional Bird player they run into once every blue moon?

Not that I want to paint the devil on the wall, but after 7.c3 Qd6 8.Qe1 I found three games, 1 corr, 1 normal and 1 blitz, and black won all three...

About 1.f4 d5 2.d3 to avoid a reversed 2.Nc3 variation, after 2...Nc6 3.Nf3 Bg4 4.Nbd2 I think 2.d3 has turned out well. 
A reversed Staunton may not be the end of the world either after 2...e5 3.fxe5 Nc6 but the worth of having d3 in isn't obvious after 4.Nf3 f6!? 

Simply playing 3...f6 and 4...e5 is more logical and a problem for white I think, since d3-d4 loses a tempo and playing e4 turns into some kind of KG with an early d3 which is usually too passive.

In the From's gambit the critical line is not the old 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 (or the neo-From 2...Nc6 3.Nf3 g5) 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5?! but the even older (!) 4...Nf6! GM Henrik Danielsen who is probably the biggest expert on the Bird's opening (apart from Bent Larsen of course) lost to Lars Bo Hansen at the Danish Ch somtime around 1996/7, when he played 5.e3. He has now switched to the declined with 3.Nf3 dxe5 4.e4 Bc5 which is a position form the classical King's gambit declined (1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nf3 d6 4.fxe5 dxe5) which is supposed to be innocuous.

If agree with TomR that 1...d6 does not force 2.e4 if this was true I would certainly play 1...d6 2.e4 e5! transposing to the King's gambit. 2.Nf3 e5 3.e4 also transposes to the KG. However, White can play 2.Nf3 e5 3.fxe5 reaching the line above.

I had the experience of playing a small open tournament in my native town of Faaborg, Denmark last year. Danielsen played 1.f4 in all his White games and won all of them. Unfortunately I had White and was stupid enough to play the Blackmar-Diemer gambit, when of course I should have played 1.f4. Then I would have known what the best defence for Black is!
I once heard that Malaniuk upon asked why he did not play the Bird opening, replied: "that extra tempo is gonna hurt me".
If I could only get a reversed Leningrad (and even that is questionable, e.g. in TalJechin's line Black uses the minus tempo to NOT weaken his position with c7-c5) I would play 1.f4 every game (and hope for 1...e5 2.e4! of course!)
Unfortunately, and here I agree with Bonsai, Black has too many annoying options, e.g. 1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 Nc6!? (a Nc3 anti-Dutch with colours reversed) 3.e3 (3.g3 Bg4 4.Bg2 Bxf3 5.Bxf3 e5) 3...Bg4 and now what?

I can't see a situation where White has to stop e5 with d3-d4, he can just play with e4 and aim to meet ...e5 with f5 and an attack on the KingSide.

I agree there is no equivalent line after d4 f5 but after 1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 is an interesting line.

1.f4 d6 2. d3 e5 3.Nf3 etc. I'm sure that this position is fine for Black - but fairly easy equality, i'm not so sure. GMs (including one who had time to prepare for 1.f4) have failed to equalise in this line. 
We might just have to agree to disagree on this one!

Paddy: If White is worried about line such as 2...h5 then he can always meet 1...d5 with the more flexible 2.d3 to delay g3. He can then play Nf3 without worrying about Bg4 as it can be met by Nbd2.
I accept that it may be boring to use all the time, and I would not do so, I use it in conjunction with 1.e4.

Bonsia: again 1...d6 can be met with 2.d3 keeping White's options open and significantly decreasing the effectiveness of Bg4 at any stage.

Quote:


Hi Tom.

There are questions of fashion, of course, and also the boredom factor of playing the same set-ups with both colours. 

On the theory side, the problem may be that the very early commitment entailed in f4 and g3, coupled with the lack of direct pressure on the black position, combine to give Black a pretty free hand to react appropriately.

Concretely, it is also worth noting that the direct hacking attempt 1 f4 d5 2 g3 h5!? scores well for Black. There's an impressive example in the game Blatny-Akobian which can be viewed at ICC. Not sure many players would be comfortable with that sort of game as White.

I think Bonsai hits the nail on its head. In the main lines of the Dutch White has to take some risks, if he/she wants to achieve something. With colours reversed, it is easier for Black to equalize by playing a solid system. One idea is a King's Indian setup. Another option is the double fianchetto with d5.
But if White is content with asymmetrical equality, there is nothing wrong with 1.f4, provided he/she does not expect too much.

I think most dutchers play 1.e4 to get sharp play fast. 1.f4 just doesn't offer much of that.

And besides, play can probably be transposed to openings from 1.e4 but reaching less dynamic lines. 

For example: 

1.f4 c5 followed by Nc6, g6, bg7, d6 etc should eventually transpose to a grand prix attack or a closed sicilian.

1.f4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 would probably have more in common with a minor french variation like the king's indian attack than an accelerated leningrad. Presumably, the same goes for 1...c6 - but with a good caro-kann instead of a good french 

I have been a Leningrad Dutch player for a couple of years and I have played it with reasonable results. Lately I have been experimenting with 1.f4 and it seems to me that this move is very under-rated! I have now played it 10 times with 6 draws (against 2GMs, 2IMs and 2 2300s) and 4 wins. I play it like a reversed Leningrad and, as yet, I have had few opening problems.
Can anyone suggest why the Birds is so unpopular, whereas the Dutch is played by many strong players?  ???