BirdBrain wrote on 12/29/09 at 19:22:08:


For whatever it's worth, I play pretty much like White standardly plays against the Dutch, with ...g6, ...c5, ...Nf6 and so forth.  I don't bother to book up here; I just play chess.

When I face 1.f4 I always play 1...d5, since I think that's the best way to highlight the weakness of White's e-pawn.

MNb wrote on 12/29/09 at 03:32:17:


He may take it up again if he reads Kindermann's Leningrad text for the anti-English line given therein is both forthright and reliable.

moahunter wrote on 12/28/09 at 20:20:22:


It kind of looks like you are  implying that by playing 1.f4 one is avoiding theory.  I think that is a  huge stretch. 

What you have described is playing symmetrical and can be done in any 1e4 or 1.d4  or 1.c4 opening...... Examples....  The Petroff , Queens Gambits  "The Symmetrical English. etc etc.... 

IMO...Hardly avoiding theory....

But you have hit on something...IMO some of the most interesting lines in the Bird  are the symmetrical lines.    There is very little solid theory existing on the symmetrical Bird, most of it is bad. 

Well, one big advantage (debatable, yes!) of systems like 1. f4 is that since the pawns are still held back a bit, White has more flexibility in his structure.  I know, I know...not to everyone's liking, and there will be plenty of arguments that it is better to play another move, such as d4 or e4, and the various arguments that they hold.  But 1. f4 has a different philosophy, and that being said, it does have some nice plusses.  I right now consider the basic queenside fianchetto setup with f4-e3-b3.  White has a nice option in d3 and h3-g4 often (many Black players try to discourage White's opening strategy with misplaced knight sorties (early Nf6-g4 or e4), and the knight often gets misplaced on h6.  Often, this is exactly WHAT I need to give me even more tempos on my pawn roller.  Of course, if they don't oblige - then White begins to prepare e4 (a theme in many 1. d4 openings) and with both e4 and f4, he has potential for a nice kingside pawnspike in Black's side - talk about a thorn in the foot!  Now one cool thing is that not always do those pawnrollers mean business on the kingside - there have actually been times where the kingside was stymied temporarily, and battle actually shifted to the queenside.  Rarely, for me, has the battle been in the center of the board - the pawn structures push it otherwise.
And I remember reading a very interesting point of Larsen's strategy in many 1. f4 encounters (granted - he is much better than I, but I understand that I can begin to learn from his idea) - he would begin to trade off c-pawn for d-pawn, b-pawn for c-pawn, a-pawn for b-pawn, and by the end, he had a 5-4 kingside pawn majority (apparently a winning endgame for White) while Black suffered from a weak isolated a-pawn.
Another advantage of 1. f4 is that White has flexible ways to "open the board" - of course, opening the f-file gives the king rook an avenue towards the king.  But instead of the "typical" e4 pawnpush, White can also prepare g2-g4, which can be positional as well as aggressive, depending on the flow of the game.
Another advantage is the lack of theory to have to absorb - White can almost play the same initial moves against many Black tries - not in all cases, but often the initial moves are safe enough to play "autopilot" - and if White wishes, he can choose to deviate.
Another advantage is that 1. f4 is often played in Dutch format - which means that not only is White studying a reliable offense, but he is also getting a feel of one of Black's most aggressive choices against 1. d4.
There are variable arguments against playing 1. f4, and I have tried for years to justify it.  Sure, maybe according to GM's, 1. d4 and 1. e4 maximize White's chances of opening advantage - but they also increase his workload dramatically.  I believe in practicality and creativity, and 1. f4 offers a full spectrum of both.  I am fully in favor of it as a playable opening.  I will not try to claim it is as good as 1. d4 - personally, I don't care.  I like 1. d4, but I like 1. f4 better.

I don't question the soundness of 1.f4, just its wisdom.  Unless you're Larsen, of course.

I did play it for awhile when I felt as though my rating wasn't reflective of my chess ability (how many times do we make that claim? ).  I played a variety of less orthodox openings like the Bird, the English Defense, etc., in order to get my opponents out of book so that we could just play chess.  I stopped playing for quite awhile shortly thereafter, so I can't comment on the success of my plan, theory, or claim, but I did win a number of games against stronger opposition in the chaos moves like 1.f4 provoked on the board.  I have little time to really study openings anymore.  (Careful analysis of particular lines: yes.  Bolstering an entire repertoire: not so much).  In these kinds of conditions, I would definitely consider giving 1.f4 another try if I returned to the board.  It's a fine way to discourage a booked-up opponent.  Going back to an earlier comment in the thread, I suspect this was Larsen's motivation for playing the Bird.