29 ( +1 | -1 ) Sinceyou have a perfect record here at GK, you must mean OTB. Can I just suggest The Froms Gambit, to answer 1.f4 with 1.... e5!? This should give you plenty of exitement and good fighting games :-))
28 ( +1 | -1 ) Or...If you happen to be a more positional player 1...d5 is not bad followed by a kingside fianchetto. The game plans are very similar to the Dutch. Any way this move hasn't posed many troubles so far. The From gambit is totally playable but just isn't my style except when I'm playing blitz.
53 ( +1 | -1 ) The Froms Gambit is by far the most aggresive appraoch, and OTB quite a good weapon. There a variuos plans in the Bird opening. The most original, is a maintain a heavy grip on the e5 square. White normally fianchettos the Queens bishop and follows up with Nf3, e3, 0-0 and at times trades off the light squared bishop for a knight which may be defending e5. Its quite a tough nut to crack because its a positional opening. 1...d5 as mentioned by tye.. is also good if to your tastes. Its also quite possibile to play 1...f5 with a symmetrical setup in mind.
46 ( +1 | -1 ) I think 1...d6 is also quite an appealing idea, setups with d3 by white are usually quite dangerous for black when he plays the Dutch, so presumably this is quite an interesting idea. It's very difficult for white to keep black from playing e7-e5, which won't even usually be a pawn sacrifice as in From's gambit. The only potential problem is what to do after 2.e4, as one probably doesn't want to play a King's gambit declined...
87 ( +1 | -1 ) Bird's is interestingand there isa curious phenomenon that can result in it. Being one of the few openings where WT can launch a K-side assult vs some traditioanl center ideas of BL , and yet succeed. BL may get his center strike of a c5,d5 type and find it just doesn't matter! One solid BL idea, think it was a player/writer named Don Maddox (Exp I think) tried it vs my Bird's and did okay. Pawns to d5,c6,e6, Bf5 maybe delay castlling, at least until just before an ....e5 strike can be made. Be sure not to get the Bf5 trapped. Personally I play Fromm's most often.Corr IM Keith Hayward is the Bird's authority. And published an article in 90's re how he played it as primary WT weapon. His version there is no Bb2, rather plays for d3,e4 by WT. Rather the Modern Dutch reversed, with some ideas added to handle some things. He transposes Fromms to a KG type position. Highly informative if you ever find it. I saw in APCT Bulletin If I recall.
32 ( +1 | -1 ) Thanks everyone for the tips and answers ... you gave me a lot to think about. I like the idea from ccmcacollister with the setup d5,c6,e6, Bf5 ... will also check the From's gambit but then I think I need to work out something as well for 2.e4 when it comes up somehow to King's gambit declined as bonsai wrote ...
43 ( +1 | -1 ) the key to beating 1.f4 is simply taking the e5 square as in the above kasparov game, there is also a game in my database where svidler uses the same strategy. The only thing im not sure about is if they play an early d4, which gains more pressure on e5 square if that happens i believe you just castle kingside and play c5 with queenside expansion. 1.f4 is definately not the best move at white's disposal.
19 ( +1 | -1 ) Just ...A small addition. In reply to the From Gambit White can play 2.e4 puting Black in another gambit which may not suite everyone taste. Just thought a warning may be in order.
51 ( +1 | -1 ) F4 as White in....GK or similar Correspondance Chess is a fools game. White is delusional if he thinks he can win, oh maybe against a weak opponent but I dare say the likes of florinserban, Cairo, Duchess wouldn't play this if they were Methuselah. F4--E5 and black wins, where is Bobby Fischer for that quote?
39 ( +1 | -1 ) Just a curiosity...The only King's Gambit played with white pieces by J.R. Capablanca (Capablanca-Molina y Ruiz, Chessistic Tour in Buenos Aires, Argentina in 1914) begun like a transposition: 1.f4 e5, 2.e4...By the the way, as far as I know, this is the only game of Capablanca in which he opened with 1.f4.
If somebody knows another game, I wolud appreciate a lot if he/she lets me know.
49 ( +1 | -1 ) A silogismMeditating a little about my comment about Capa's 1.f4 game:
A) Nobody has refuted the King's Gambit. B) If Black answers 1.f4 with 1...e5, then White can play an opening nobody has refuted. C) At the present stage of our chessistic knowledge, if there exists a refutation to 1.f4, one must not look in the 1...e5 complex, but somewhere else.
The silogism is valid and the premise B is obvious, then the truth of C depends on the truth of A.
Post scriptum: Yes, of course I know 1...e5 is fully playable, ok?
159 ( +1 | -1 ) The syllogism is valid, but the conclusion is of little value. Pragmatically (since 1. f4 has not been refuted), we would do better to expand our present state of chessic knowledge.
I think that the conclusion has not little value, on the contrary. Indeed, it says "...not look in...but somewhere else". I think that "looking", in this context is synonimous of "investigate", "expand our knowledge", as you wrote. So ironicaly, my little value conclusion is just reinforcing your suggestion.
Besides, thanks a lot for the games!, My assertion that Capablanca has only played the King's Gambit once comes from a serious, but, as you have showed, inexact source: "Capablanca" by Vassily Panov.
To finish, I know for sure that the move order in the Capablanca-Molina y Ruiz, 1914, game was 1.f4 e5, 2.e4... not 1.e4 e5, 2.f4.
Thanks again for the games,
41 ( +1 | -1 ) But the conclusion is "At the present stage of our chessistic knowledge, if there exists a refutation to 1.f4, one must not look in the 1...e5 complex, but somewhere else.", which says nothing about a later stage of chessistic knowledge (an attempt to make it so based on A&B would not be valid). Thus it could be the case that one would do better to look for a refutation in the 1. f4 e5 lines, if in doing so one expands the present stage of chessistic knowledge.
54 ( +1 | -1 ) I somehow doubt that 1.f4 can be "refuted" (presumably people mean this in the sense of black getting an advantage - equality of course might be quite achievable) anyway. It may or may not be a particularly good move, but white can get away with a lot and still have a decent enough position. To comment on the idea of just playing on the queenside as black, I feel that this is dangerous (for black), as white often has ideas of attacking on the kingside (something that is also an issue in the Dutch defense, but here white is one tempo up).
I shall make a last attempt to make myself understood:
1) The logic of my argumentation is impecable, sorry. As a mathematician and former professor of Logic I can give me the luxury to be so unhumble. 2) My argument do not pretend to say nothing about a later stage of our chessistic knowledge. It SAYS that, AT THE PRESENT stage of our chessistic knowledge, IF one looks for a refutation (if there exists, obviously) of 1.f4, one must not look in the 1...e5, but somwhere else. 3) Of course, we can expand our chessistic knowledge in the 1...e5 variation, but, as my argument clearly demonstrates, if we pretend to find a refutation (if there exists, obviously, again) of 1.f4 using 1...e5, this would be the same as to refute the King's Gambit (I did never say that this is impossible, who knows?). 4) You use the word "thus". I think that you used it as synonymous of "therefore", "accordingly", "ergo", "consequently", etc. And I can't understand the the justification of that word in your argumentation.
40 ( +1 | -1 ) macheide ....Think it is alanguage problem here. Your English is very understandable. But the thing is this: There may Exist a Refutation Now within the ...e5 lines etc, but it May Not be a KNOWN refutation. I do not want to speak for you incorrectly. But I think you are saying "There is no KNOWN refutation existing in the ...e5e lines." While he is perhaps saying, There may BE an UNKNOWN refutation in those lines that we should look for? Is this Close guys?
10 ( +1 | -1 ) Also...Even though it may be UNKNOWN there, it may still be said to Exist there waiting to be found....?!
24 ( +1 | -1 ) possibly, that is.possibly that is. Sorry so many posts in row. AT least all at once is better than looking like something new each time i hope. Little shook after tangling with a burglar tonite (followed by bad blitz :(
32 ( +1 | -1 ) Refutation does not involvetranspositions to the Kings Gambit excuse me, that would be a duh; Kings Gambit by transposition and it doesn't take Capablanca to prove that point against far inferior opponents I might add, thanks but no thanks. If you are trying to be cheeky and open f4 hoping to transpose to a regular KG, whatever, still f4 - e5 white is at best drawing !
Refutation does involve transposition to the King's Gambit! If someone want to look for a refutation of 1.f4 answering 1...e5, he must take into account the white side's right to answer 2.e4, pure as crystal.
To finish, the only point that Capablanca tried to prove was that he played better.
Inferior opponents? Capablanca won the title until 1921, but all experts agree that in 1914 all the players were inferior to him.
8 ( +1 | -1 ) Just my selectionsMost probably, to 1.f4 I would answer 1. ... e5 but sometimes I could select 1. ... f5, indeed.
91 ( +1 | -1 ) macheideI believe I understand you, but perhaps you do not understand me :)
1) The argument is valid, as I have granted you. 2) What this really means ("at the present stage of chessistic knowledge") is that no one has found a refutation yet. Looking solely at the moves of previous games will not give one a known refutation, but it says nothing about one's analysis of the opening. If by "look for" you mean only look at the moves of previous games, then this may be the case, but if in looking for a refutation one expands the current stage of chessistic knowledge (that is, if one conducts new analysis) then the argument does not yield a relevant conclusion. 3) Yes, it clearly follows that if one wanted to refute 1. f4 with 1... e5, he would have to refute the King's Gambit. 4) Sorry, I did not mean to indicate that I was making a logical argument. "Thus" is synonymous with "therefore, consequently" but I really meant it more like "so" or "then". All I meant was what I said in 2) above.
1) In June, 1914, in Berlin, Capablanca and Lasker agreeded what in those times was a lighting match (10 games in 45 minutes). The result: 6.5 : 3.5 in favor of Capablanca. Unfortunately, the games were played so fast that nobody wrote them. Only one fragment, the end of one of those games was preserved. Capablanca played the white pieces, although during many years the contrary was belived. The position: WHITE: Kd8, Rb8, Na6, Pb5; BLACK: Ka7, Nc7, Nd5, Pb6. White plays and win. It's easy, but as I said before, an almost unknown position of a Capa's game.
2) During the Moscow International Tournament in 1936, some players asked Capablanca why, if he was a "virtuoso" of chess endgames, had never composed a chess study. He answered: "When I was young, I compose one so difficult that nobody could solve. Since then I lost interest in chess composition, because I consider useless to compose studies nobody will solve". The position: WHITE: Kd3, Rb1, Ne3; BLACK: Ka4, Rh7, PAWNS IN c5, c6, f6, g6, g5, g4, g3. White to play and win. That the solution consists in more than 24 moves, reveals the difficulty to solve it.