"The doubled pawns can be a real liability. Granted it will take refined positional skill to take advantage of this minor weakness. " Drawyah
These double pawns are not isolated,even more they are towards the center.  They also have advantages, for example fortifying the center.  Taking advantage of the double pawns means being able to attack them, that is very hard to do in this position as it is.  Another plus for Black is White's bishop.  Black has a better piece.  White's knights are not too difficult to exchange if Black has it in his plans, and that will leave white with the bad bishop.  Black is solid and in this line I speak from experience and from having studied this position, I am not saying I know everything, but I do have strong reasons for this opinion.  

Now for your other statement---
"I think your Leningrad line is representative of what White is seeking with Qe1. Notice your line did not have h3 and g4 nor Qh4. The Leningrad formation Qe1 line is about playing e4. "
Well, notice that you suggested 8.Ne5 and with e4 to follow, and after 8...  Qd6 and later Black's own ...e-pawn push to e5,  that plan--of h3, g4 kind of went out the window for that moment.  Can't have your cake and eat it.  But I think that the reaction to 8.Ne5 should take care of Black.

To those who complained that my line(s) for white were too much this or that, please remember I was giving a typical set up or line.  I am not going to post a book on the line or list all the possibilities.  If there is a critical line you wish to politely and amicably discuss, I will be glad to engage it.

Now for this point--"
"In response to Bladez, playing 1 ... c5 and hoping for a Grand Prix is ridiculous: why would White play 1 f4 in order to play an inferior Sicilian?"
HgMan

Please dont think I don't know what I am talking about here.  I have seen this happen with my very own eyes and I have seen it from games in databases.  I will name again, FM Michael Aigner (I hope I am spelling it right, he goes by the alias of fpawn), he has ended up in these kind of positions when facing 1.... c5.  In his opinion, 1... c5 leads to the best defense versus 1.f4.  He might be as much as a guru in the Bird as Drawyah, might be.  It is not nearly as crazy or dumb as you might think.  Think about this:  if you are striving to play a Dutch defense system with colors reversed, chances are you will play e4.  Once that happens, chances in the 1.... c5 line are that you will end up in Grand Prix or Closed sicilian type of positions, especially if Black does not play his d-pawn to d5.  I am a bit more familiar with this issue than you might think. I am not making this up.

Now for another point---

1 f4 d5 2 Nf3 g6 3 e3 Bg7 4 Be2 c5 5 0-0 Nf6 6 d3 Nc6 7 Qe1 0-0  (this line given by HgMan)
In this line, White bases his ideas on the classical Dutch Defense.
But I prefer the following set-up for Black against this idea :

1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 g6 3.e3 Bg7 4.Be2 Nf6 5.0–0 0–0 6.d3 c5 7.Qe1 Nc6 8.c3 Qd6 With idea of ...e5 and White wants to stop this I think he will have no choice but play d4, wasting a tempo.

@drawyah, 

Thanks for the insights Keith!  I agree with much that you've said.  However I still have faith in Bf4 against the Stonewall Dutch.  Kramnik's work is indeed essential reading before trying it, but I think White can nurse a small edge with it.   

As Black though, you are probably right that ....Bf5 is quite risky.  Black has to be very careful not to be pushed off the board.  Having said that, I've had good success with a timely ...Bf5, even against the Stonewall for White.  I'm more worried about the reverse Leningrad with Qe1 and e4 as you pointed out.

From a practical perspective, I've only run across one master in my area who plays 1.f4 to win.  There are several "A" players who use it whenever they face higher rated opponents.  While it's a long slog to win against such players, I am usually successful.   

I wouldn't relish facing you or someone of your ilk playing it for money against me though!  Maybe we'll have that chance at a tournament in Las Vegas or Colorado if you ever make it up here!

Quote:


11 Bd1!? is an interesting idea to enforce e4. White can waste time this way since it will be regained when the bishop on f5 moves.

Good Chess! Keith

All valid points, but I was drawn to the move for a few reasons:

First, rather than creating a weakness on White's queenside, I find that 8 a4 can be a rather useful prophylactic move that inhibits Black's queenside advance.  7 ... a5 can also be a rather useful move as Black in similar lines of the Classical Dutch, and in my relatively limited experience, White is often best served by limiting Black's counterplay before generating his/her attack.  It seems to me that 8 a4 is more effective in holding the b5-square than the knight at c3 (which can alternatively come to d2, though I've always wound up bringing it to c3).

Playing for e4 is never especially easy, but flexible play from White can allow for e4 later as the opening shifts to the middlegame, when it can be very effective and dangerous for Black.  7 Qe1 is a useful multi-purpose move which supports an e4 push, but it also provides useful diagonals to the queenside or--more commonly--the kingside.  With the difficulty of successfully achieving e4 in mind, though, is striving for e4 the best plan for White?  I've only managed it once, and Black helped:

1 f4 d5 2 Nf3 g6 3 e3 Bg7 4 Be2 c5 5 0-0 Nc6 6 d3 Nf6 7 Qe1 0-0 8 a4 Qc7 9 Qh4 Bf5 (this is an annoying move, but one that's probably not good) 10 Nc3 Rfd8 11 Bd2 h5?! 12 Ng5 a6?! 13 e4 with a big advantage for White.

drawyah's point about removing the pieces is a valuable suggestion in any opening, and I take his point here, but it seems to me that limiting Black's play on the queenside warrants some consideration before beginning kingside operations...

Quote:


This variation seems a little limited, and really doesn't offer much in the way of possibilities for White.  What about:

1 f4 d5 2 Nf3 g6 3 e3 Bg7 4 Be2 c5 5 0-0 Nf6 6 d3 Nc6 7 Qe1 0-0 (Black's moves can be transposed with little difference in the end position here).  And here, 8 a4 is quite interesting...

Keith, 

I agree with you on both points!  I'm still not converted to the Bird, but at least your plans make more sense for White.

Insults aside, I still haven't seen anything to persuade me that 1 f4 is unplayable (while I also accept that it's not as high risk/high reward as 1 e4).   

I think Black can create trouble for White against the Reversed Leningrad, and have started to adopt a Reversed Classical set-up to good effect. (Will post some games soon).

In response to Bladez, playing 1 ... c5 and hoping for a Grand Prix is ridiculous: why would White play 1 f4 in order to play an inferior Sicilian?  When an opponent is faced with this OTB, the Bird can present some unsettling problems, and it's been my experience that Fritz and other engines tend to overestimate Black's chances (which has proved to provide some nice results in correspondence chess).

But let's keep this up: I'd like to think I'm as devoted to the Bird as some of those BDG advocates...

That's quite easy to quote Dzindzishashvili's very light analysis on his DVD about the subject and to call patzers people who don't know this !!!

Things are not that simple in the reversed Leningrad and there is no miracle cure against this.

Maybe there is no advantage for white (it's quite fashionable also to quote Watson about the relative innocuousness of reversed openings) but someone who knows quite well the strategical ideas of the Leningrad with a decent tactical level can have better results than in a main line sicilian or Grunfeld for example.

Greetings