Markovich wrote on 09/20/07 at 12:35:08:

Well, one of the Danes. From might have been kibitzing when Lindehn-Maczuski was played in Paris 1863, as he has lived there. Otherwise Lindehn has told him in Kopenhagen 1862.
Other Danish connections are the corr games Kopenhagen-Uppsala,1875 (From probably was involved), Nielsen-Van der Linde,1875 and Sörensen-Leffler, 1875. I have read somewhere that the Danish wrote one or more articles on this gambit.

Quote:

From my experience, 1 f4 d5 is roughly equal, although black needs to know what he is doing. With all others white can play for an edge, just as with 1 e4 or 1 d4.

1. f4-e5 2.fe4-Nc6 3.Nc3 ?! I think this is not a good move. 1 f4 e5 2 e4 ?! I think this is not a good move either, although a lot of people have a soft spot for playing a kings gambit. 

1.f4 d6 2.Nf3 e5 3.fxe5 g5!? Is a tricky try, but not a serious challange for white in the From.

[quote author=Uberdeker link=1142847973/30#33 date=1190314539]Although it may not be fully sound either, the Deferred From should in principle be superior to the standard form.[/quote]
Do you think something like 1. f4-e5 2.fe4-Nc6 3.Nc3-d6?

Markovich wrote on 09/20/07 at 12:35:08:


I think your first reason is the most important. I started to play the Bird in July and now I am very happy when my opponent plays the From (in blitz or rapid, my percentage is about 90%). Last week in a rapid tournament I totally outplayed a player rated 500 elo points higher (2300). He surely underestimated me but it is not normal that a player of my level so easily outplays someone rated 500 points higher. There is certainly something wrong with the From. (The Mestel variation might be better but I never encountered it till today) 

I'm not sure where to post this, since all these lines have a knack for transposition or near-transposition, but I was just thinking that 1. Ktf3 f5 ; 2. d3 Ktc6 as discussed in another thread can be answered by 3. a3, analogously to the line above. Again, it's a reactive idea, so probably does not promise much advantage if played with colours reversed. Still, worth mentionning I think.

Sorry Frendo. I was thinking of a completely different position when I suggested 2. Ktc3 d5 ; 3. e4. Indeed, 3. ...de is good for Black as I briefly mentionned when considering 2. e4 d5. Now I'm starting to give different assessments of the same position depending on the move-order! 
So 2. ...d5 needs to be investigated, but after 3. e3, Black should be wary of going in for 3. ...c5, since he is now 2 (!) tempi down on the White side of the UD QP Defence. Admitedly, it is a very reactive defence, so this may be playable.
Regarding the rest, yes, there are many transpositional possibilities depending on Black's various second moves (2. ...Ktf6, 2. ...g6, 2. ...c5 etc)
But the line 2. ...a6 ; 3. e4 b5 ; 4. Ktf3 (4. d4 Bb7 ; 5. Bd3 is more ambitious but of course entails greater risk) Bb7 ; 5. d3 Ktbd7 is not yet a closed Sicilian as 6. g3 can still be met with 6. ...e5 and a strange Philidor-type position.

Yes, I just had a look. My analysis ran as follows : "3. g3?! e5!". Typically thorough treatment.  And it may not even be correct!!
By the way, there are two posts in that thread filled with serious material to which I never responded. Only just back and allready feeling overwhelmed again. Maybe I should just stick to Diplomacy...