17 ( +1 | -1 )
Best weapon against 1.f4 ?
I made some bad experience with black against 1.f4
Basically what is the main plan of the Bird opening and what is your typical weapon against it ?
29 ( +1 | -1 )
you 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 :-))
All the best
28 ( +1 | -1 )
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 interesting
and 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 ...
14 ( +1 | -1 )
One scheme I used to like
Was 1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Bg4 4.Be2 Nbd7 5.b3 c6 6.Bb2 Qc7 7.0-0 Bxf3 8.Nxf3 e5! (Romanishin - Kasparov, USSR 1976)
But for the sake of simplicity I just play 1...d5, 2...Nf6, 3...g6, 4...Bg7, 5...0-0, 6...c5 against both 3.e3 and 3.g3 lines.
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 )
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 )
Meditating 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.
Here are a few KG games played by Capablanca:
[Event "St. Louis"]
[White "Capablanca JR"]
[Black "Carter TA"]
1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. c3 Bg4 5. fxe5 Bxf3 6. Qxf3 dxe5 7. Bc4 Nf6 8.
d3 O-O 9. Bg5 Nbd7 10. Nd2 c6 11. O-O-O b5 12. Bb3 Be7 13. h4 Nc5 14. Bc2 Ne6
15. g4 g6 16. Bxf6 Bxf6 17. g5 Bg7 18. Rdg1 Nf4 19. Nf1 Kh8 20. Ne3 Qc7 21. h5
gxh5 22. Rxh5 Nxh5 23. Qxh5 Rae8 24. Nf5 Re6 25. Rh1 h6 26. gxh6 Bf6 27. Qg4
Rg8 28. Qg7+ Rxg7 29. hxg7+ Kg8 30. Rh8# 1-0
[Event "Buenos Aries cg"]
[White "J Capablanca"]
[Black "R Molina"]
1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. Na4 Bb6 6. Bb5 Bd7 7. Nxb6 axb6 8.
d3 Nge7 9. O-O O-O 10. f5 f6 11. Bc4+ Kh8 12. a3 Be8 13. Be6 Bh5 14. Qe1 Qe8
15. Qh4 Nd8 16. Ba2 Bf7 17. c4 c5 18. g4 Ng8 19. Bd2 b5 20. g5 fxg5 21. Nxg5
Nf6 22. Rf3 bxc4 23. Nxh7 Nxh7 24. Rh3 Bg8 25. Bxc4 Rf7 26. Kh1 b5 27. Bd5 Raa7
28. Rg1 Rf6 29. Bg5 Raf7 30. b3 Qf8 31. a4 bxa4 32. bxa4 Qe8 33. a5 Nc6 34. a6
Nb4 35. Bxf6 Nxd5 36. Bxg7+ Rxg7 37. Rxg7 Kxg7 38. Qh6+ Kh8 39. Qxd6 1-0
[Event "New York"]
[White "J Capablanca"]
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Qf3 Nc6 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 d5 6. e5 Ne4 7. Bxf4 g5 8. Be3
h5 9. Nd2 Bg4 10. Nxe4 Bxf3 11. Nf6+ Ke7 12. Nxf3 Bh6 13. Nxg5 Bg7 14. Bd3 Bxf6
15. O-O Qg8 16. Rxf6 Rf8 17. Raf1 Nd8 18. b4 Qg7 19. h4 Ke8 20. b5 b6 21. Be2
Ne6 22. Bf3 Nxg5 23. Bxg5 Qh7 24. Bxd5 Qd3 25. Bc6+ 1-0
[Event "New York"]
[White "Capablanca JR"]
[Black "Maddock ES"]
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Qf3 g5 4. h4 Bg7 5. c3 c5 6. d3 h6 7. g3 Nc6 8. gxf4
gxf4 9. Bxf4 d6 10. Nd2 Nf6 11. Be2 Be6 12. Nh3 Qd7 13. Nf2 O-O-O 14. O-O-O Na5
15. b3 Ne8 16. Kc2 Nc7 17. Rhg1 Rhg8 18. Nc4 Nb5 19. Rxg7 Rxg7 20. Nxa5 Rg6 21.
a4 Nc7 22. h5 Rf6 23. e5 Bd5 24. Ne4 dxe5 25. Nxf6 Bxf3 26. Bxf3 Qd6 27. Bxe5
Qb6 28. Nxb7 c4 29. Nxd8 Qf2+ 30. Rd2 cxb3+ 31. Kxb3 Qxd2 32. Nxf7 Qxd3 33.
Bg4+ Kb7 34. Nd6+ Kc6 35. Bd7+ Kc5 36. Nde4+ Kb6 37. a5+ 1-0
[White "Capablanca JR"]
[Black "Beckman AH"]
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 d5 4. Bxd5 Qh4+ 5. Kf1 g5 6. Nc3 Bg7 7. d4 Ne7 8. g3
fxg3 9. Kg2 Nxd5 10. hxg3 Nxc3 11. bxc3 Qxe4+ 12. Nf3 Bg4 13. Re1 Bxf3+ 14.
Qxf3 Qxe1 15. Bxg5 Qe6 16. d5 Qe5 17. Bf4 Qe7 18. Qd3 Nd7 19. d6 cxd6 20. Bxd6
Qe6 21. Kf2 O-O-O 22. Re1 Ne5 0-1
I believe these are all from exhibitions. I don't know if these versions of the moves are correct.
68 ( +1 | -1 )
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).
94 ( +1 | -1 )
Maybe my english is worst than I belived :-)
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 a
language 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 )
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 involve
transpositions 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 !
48 ( +1 | -1 )
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 selections
Most probably, to 1.f4 I would answer 1. ... e5
but sometimes I could select 1. ... f5, indeed.
91 ( +1 | -1 )
I 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.
18 ( +1 | -1 )
Thanks for your answer and, as I said you before, for the rare Capa's games.
If I can ask, where did you find this rarities?
24 ( +1 | -1 )
Simply looked on www.chessgames.com. As it turns out, there are actually quite a few more at www.chesslive.de (around 25).
118 ( +1 | -1 )
Hey, that's great!, Thanks a lot!
Let me give you a reciprocity, two rarities:
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
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.
Regards and enjoy them,