LOL.  I think by putting our grief here we've made it public.

After 1.f4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.e4, just say, "I call no fxe4."  Failing that play 4.Ng5 Nf6 5.d3 which can transpose to Bird-Gelbfuhs, Vienna 1873 via 5...exd3 6.Bxd3 or follow S.Freiman-Bogljubov, St.Petersburg 1914, with 5...h6 6.Nxe4, both wins for White by the way.  These are also games given by Tim Taylor but I thought everyone was aware of this cutting edge theory.  I actually haven't really looked to see if I think 4.Ng5 is sound or not.  Anyone have an opinion on it?

As for holding back on d4, after 1.f4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.e4 d5 4.exd5 exd5, maybe that's a good idea.  I suppose a setup with b3 and Bb2 might be reasonable.  Would one need to play g3 to protect the f-pawn.  Is there a pre-1920 reference on this I'm not aware of?  Please share your grief, misery loves company.

Not that I really mind rehashing old debates but I agree that the From probably isn't OK for Black.  I think, perhaps, the most challenging move, for those of the White pieces seeking a dynamic game, is 1...f5.  1.f4 f5 2.e4 may give White enough compensation for the pawn, but then again it may not.  Other second move tries really seem fairly dull to me.  In fact, until someone changes my mind, I think 1.f4 f5 is more likely to be drawn than 1.c4 c5 if White declines to play the Reversed From.  Another option for Black is 1.f4 e6 2.Nf3 f5.  Now White can still try and gambit with 3.e4, but isn't 3...d5 rather boring and unlikely to give any advantage?  Taylor gives 1.f4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.e4 d5 4.exd5 exd5 5.d4 Nf6 6.Bd3 Bd6 7.0-0 0-0 8.c4 and says, "White has a slight edge due to the first move in this symmetrical position."  He goes on to show how White won after this in the game S.Freiman-A.Rubinstein, Vilnius 1912.

According to Tim Taylor, in his recent book, the setup with b4 does give White reasonable chances to play for an advantage.  Of course he also mentions that Black can avoid this system.

Another interesting suggestion from his book is: 1.f4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nc3 which looks rather logical to me.

[quote author=Glenn Snow link=1117386086/105#116 date=1139239398]

C. 2.Nf3 g5 3.d4!?  (If White wants to play it safe this seems a good method.)

I think 3 e3!? equally good. I present this game, in the reverse form, as an example of how to play:

[Event "Castle Simul"]
[Site "St Paul MN"]
[Date "1986.09.09"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Agdestein, Simen"]
[Black "Hayward, Keith"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A80"]
[BlackElo "2286"]
1. d4 f5 2. h3 Nf6 3. g4 e6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. Nc3 Ne4 6. Nxe4 fxe4 7. Bxe7 Qxe7 8. Qd2 O-O 9. h4 d5 10. f3 e5 11. O-O-O exd4 12. Qxd4 Be6 13. fxe4 Nc6 14. Qa4 d4 15. Bh3 a6 16. g5 b5 17. Bxe6+ Qxe6 18. Qb3 Qxb3 19. axb3 Rae8 20. Nf3 Rxe4 21. Rd2 Rfe8 22. Kd1 Rd8 23. Rh3 Ne7 24. Ke1 Nf5 25. Kf2 Rde8 26. Rh1 c5 27. h5 R8e6 28. c3 Rg4 29. Rhd1 Ng3 30. Rc2 Ne4+ 31. Kf1 Nxg5 32. Nxg5 Rxg5 33. cxd4 Rxh5 34. Rd3 Rf5+ 35. Ke1 cxd4 36. Rxd4 h5 37. b4 Rfe5 38. Rd7 h4 39. Kf1 Rg5 40. Rc3 Rf6+ 41. Ke1 Rg1+ 42. Kd2 Rg3 43. Rd4 Rxc3 44. bxc3 Rh6 45. Ke3 h3 46. Rd1 h2 47. Rh1 Kf7 48. Kf2 Ke6 49. Kg2 Ke5 50. Rxh2 Rxh2+ 51. Kxh2 Ke4 52. Kg2 Ke3 53. Kf1 g5 54. Ke1 g4 55. Kf1 g3 0-1

I have faced 1...g5 just once!? Here is that game:

[Event "8P008"]
[Site "ICCF"]
[Date "1987.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Hayward, Keith"]
[Black "Kuge, Thomas"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A02"]
[EventType "corr"]
1. f4 g5 2. fxg5 e5 3. d4 e4 4. Bf4 d6 5. Nc3 Bf5 6. e3 h6 7. gxh6 Nf6 8. d5 Bxh6 9. Bb5+ c6 10. Ba4 Ng4 11. dxc6 bxc6 12. Qd4 Rh7 13. Nge2 Qf6 14. Qxf6 Nxf6 15. Bxh6 Rxh6 16. O-O Bd7 17. Nd4 Ng4 18. Nxe4 d5 19. Nc5 Ne5 20. e4 dxe4 21. Rae1 1-0

The strongest punishment to a move like (1 f4 ) 1...h6 is simply to play solidly and do not over-react. Consequently Black will be left struggling to justify the kingside weaknesses more often than not. 

Good Chess! Keith

Bird's Opening      A03
Lasker Variation       

L Aronian (2752)
V Topalov (2801)

Amber Blindfold (2)
Monte Carlo MNC, 2006

1. f4 d5 2. Sf3 g6 3. g3 Lg7 4. Lg2 c6 5. O-O Lg4 6. Se5 h5 7. h3 Le6 8. d3 Sh6 9. De1 Sd7 10. Sf3 Db6+ 11. Kh1 d4 12. Sbd2 Sf5 13. Se4 Ld5 14. c4 dxc3 15. bxc3 Sc5 16. Sh4 Sxh4 17. gxh4 Sxe4 18. dxe4 Lc4 19. La3 Da5 20. Lb4 Dc7 21. Lc5 b6 22. Le3 c5 23. a4 O-O 24. Tg1 e6 25. Lf3 Lh6 26. Df2 Kh7 27. f5 exf5 28. Lxh6 Kxh6 29. exf5 Df4 30. Taf1 Tae8 31. fxg6 fxg6 32. Dg2 Dd6 33. Lxh5 Txf1 34. Txf1 Te5 35. Dg3 Ld5+ 36. Kg1 Le4 37. Tf7 Dd1+ 38. Kf2 Tf5+ 39. Txf5 Lxf5 40. Dg5+ Kh7 41. De7+ Kh6 42. Lg4 Dd2 43. De5 Dd8 44. Df4+ Kh7 45. Lxf5 gxf5 46. Dxf5+ Kh6 47. Dg5+ Dxg5 48. hxg5+ Kxg5 49. Kf3 Kf5 50. h4 c4 51. Ke3 1-0

I've been looking to start playing the Bird, and I don't really think the opening goes against the laws of chess so much as to be "refutable". 1.f4 targets the e5 square, and this control is increased with moves like Nf3 (and, in the fianchetto lines, Bb2). Also, should white succeed in his aim to get a second pawn into the centre on e4, he will control a lot of territory in black's side of the board in the centre and the kingside, which will facilitate an attack - let's not forget that the predominant objective of chess is to checkmate the opponent's king.

Since white starts with a one tempo advantage, 1.f4 seems like a fairly sensible way of opening, especially if 1.c4 is regarded as an attempt at getting an advantage from the opening. The weakening of the kingside, as with most f-pawn thrusts, is illusory with correct play, and possibly even of benefit since many people then try to destroy white from the opening. 

Of course, as a KG/Latvian player, I'm probably a little biased regarding this. Yet, I feel the dutch is a bad opening... so much for logic eh? 

Anyway, Taylor's new book does a much better job than I could of convincing someone to play this opening. One of the best books I've read in a long time  - even if he does waste a little bit too much time on 1.f4 f5 2.e4 for my liking.

Regards,
Craig

Quote:


Now, now faleth7, your comment is valid only if chess were as simple as tic-tac-toe. I wish it were and we all would have had better things to do.

What's more, your post makes a mockery of these nine pages of excellent discussions. You know what? This tread and Keith Hayward's web page are sufficient to get anyone to play 1.f4 competently. 

Asymetrical pawn structure doesn't guarantee anything. Many lines of Orthodox QGD leads to asymetrical pawn structure!

Chess is complex, very complex.

Quote:



@ John Cox

Those comments you made were about line B in page 7 of this thread.  I later responded--

"After your proposed Bh4, Black simply plays ...Bf6 immediately and White should plan on shaking hands and saving his energy for the next round, in my opinion.  I have gone over this line for some time.  I would like to see what you conclude after looking at ....Bf6 for yourself. "

Any comments?

Cheers