Why lower rated players should learn bird's opening

 A Dan Heisman article has mentioned that a beginner should learn French defense to learn the freeing moves from cramped position.  In a tongue and cheek fashion, I reckon that a beginner should also learn bird's opening for the following reasons:

1.  If you play a good opponent, he will show you how to exploit the weakened f2-h4 diagonal as well as the weakened f2-a6 diagonal.  You learn various way to lose a game which you didn't know existed before.  I am not simply talking about a queen check followed by N or B takes on g3.  There are very many other ways to lose a game.  If you master those ways, you can use for yourself in the future.

2.  You learn at least two ways to lose a game in four moves.  I fell victims to them. 

3.  You get to learn the value of king safety as you have to guard against checks from different sides including checks from the dark square diagonals as well as potentially knight checks from f4 square after your king moves to h1.  Also whether to move your king to h1 is a dilemma. 

4.  I think it was Roman Dzindzichashvili who said Bird's opening is for lazy players who want a big attack without wanting to study theories.  I laughed when I heard that because that is pretty right on.  I am lazy and don't want to study theory.  On top of that, I also play dutch defense so that's two birds in one stone.  This frees up some time to learn other things like middle game or to play witcher 3.

5.  Your opponent will show you how to deal with fianchettoed bishop by locking pawns at a particular color and rendering the bishop's activities to nil.  I have played so many games during which both of my bishops were useless and it was like I was playing two pieces down.

6.  Your opponent will teach you how to beat bird's opening with From's gambit. 

Interesting post.  But you should not prematurely speak of Bird's opening as if was refuted.  Even world #2 super-GM Nakamura used it recently (in a speed game, but this still says somehthing).  I admit that top GMs usually avoid it, and many strong players would say that "white struggles to equalize", but the fact that it is uncommon gives it some surprise value.  At sub-expert levels, many players know that it's supposed to be "bad for white", but don't understand why, or how to punish it.

Incidentally, From's Gambit is not as strong as you apparently think it is.  Black would probably do better by responding 1...d5 and going for a reversed Leningrad position.  If you think From's is black's best try, then I would be willing to play the white side against you.

In most of games in chess.com, i do play bird's opening and dutch.  While it has all the pitfalls which I listed, it find it very instructive.  For example, I didn't exactly know why the weak  f2-h4 diagonal and weak f2-a6 diagonal are such a big deal until I played bird's opening.  But you have to play against strong players and have them teach you a lesson. 

Also, i noticed in computer analysis, you get -0.20 ~ -0.40 right from the beginning.  It's like white has to equalize.  I think that's due to computer putting some weight in king safety in evaluating positions. 

While I probably wouldn't play it for OTB tournaments, I think it's just fine for blitz / bullets.  You do get an attack going while the opening is fairly low maintenance.  There is not a lot of theory to study and black has a hard time preventing you from achieving typical bird's setup's. 

I too often play the Bird here, and the Dutch Classical and Leningrad variations. Thanks for starting this thread, I want to understand these openings better.

I found both classical and leningrad variation compromises king safety, but the leningrad variation has more offensive punch to it.   I haven't seen too many books on bird openings which I like, but I recommend studying games of Henrik. Danielsen.  His games are quite entertaining and he plays other rare openings.  He proves that it's possible to become a grandmaster playing bird's opening so it can't be that horrible.

I appreciate your optimism, but I think any opening that involves an early f4 or ...f5 definitely creates some extra risk to the king, whether it's Bird's opening, the Dutch defense, the Balogh defense (1.e4 d6 2.d4 f5), or the King's Gambit.  The masters have warned us, and experience has taught me to believe it.  But even with the extra risk, I still play them because of their aggressiveness and surprise value at the B-level where I compete.

last time I played Bird's opening in a tournament, it was against a player about 200 points better. he sacked 2 minor pieces and ended with 4 connected passed pawns. Never again in a tournament!

I'm a beginner. Even though i know the rules of chess since i was seven i just started at the ripe age of 33 and joined a chess club. I did the Bird opening first because it avoids all the variations e4 has. This allowed me to study 3 lines of the bird instead the shelves full of books e4 has to offer. It freed time to play a lot more matches and learn some tactics. Both those things are much more valuable to a beginner in my view because i don't even know what kind of opening i will be playing when i reach the 1650 rating (my 3 year goal).

In other words, why waste time studying opening when you're a beginner when the focus should lie on having fun with chess first and tactics / techniques second.

what is your definition of low rated player

No, I definitely don't mean that.  I fact, I said it's possible to become a GM playing bird's opening.

Tell that to Danielsen

Thanks for the suggestion, I bought GM Henrik Danielsen's Polar Bear kindle book on amazon.  Also downloaded a kindle book about the Sturm Gambit, 1.f4 d5 2.c4.  I'm looking forward to experimenting with these, especially Danielsen's approach.

Often so many of us can place too much value, or meaning, on opening choice. True, some openings have a better record than others, but it's really all about who's playing it. Recently a new friend of mine used The Bird for the 2nd time against me and I told him he'd regret it. I used the Bird against him and embarrassed him so bad, he probably won't play me again. See, I beat him because I know where the strengths and weaknesses are and he lost because he doesn't understand strong and weak squares and the importance of the bishop pair. He's not weak, just at least 500 points weaker than me (okay 300).

  As in most reversed openings, The Bird is stronger than The Dutch; yet The Dutch is considered sound, while The Bird is considered sophmoric, at best. There is nothing wrong with The Bird and I'm considering using it as a secondary line, ahead of 1.e4 and 1.d4.  

I have been playing Bird for months, and it's quite fun.  One definitely has to study From's gambit because I lost quite a few games against From's gambit within 6-7 moves in 5 minute blitz games.  In blitz games there is no time to figure things out, you have to account for all different threats.

My winning percentage for white pieces is 3% lower than black pieces.  As black, I play dutch setup against just about anything other than 1.e4.  In that case, I play either French or Caro Kahn.  But there is just something about bird though, that makes my winning percentage worse as white.  I don't know what it is.

I find the biggest benefit of playing bird's opening is that I do just fine without having studying openings.  Instead of putting time into openings, I get to study something else like tactics, middle game, and stuff or spend time doing some other things.

I sent you an invite to our Bird's Opening group - I hope you stop by and give it a chance!  We are a wonderful group of players at varying chess strengths with one thing in common - our love for 1. f4!

I will answer these propositions in order, based on my understanding (and I have played the Bird actively for close to 10 years).

#1 - There are many, MANY lines where White fundamentally weakens both diagonals with f2-f4 at some point in the game.  I can name countless openings besides the Bird (King's Gambit, Vienna Game, Sicilian Defense...) where f4 is played as an early, attacking move.  Even in the French...there are lines, such as the Steinitz, where f4 is played to support e5 (which is also part of Bird theory), and if White is not careful, Black can eat up that pawn wedge and use these diagonals, particularly the a7-g1 diagonal.

Furthermore, even in lines where f2-f4 is not played, there are still tactics involving a pin on the f2 pawn along with tricks (such as a setup with Qb6 or Bc5 and then a Ng3! bomb at an opportune time).  So...these are valid ideas, but a Bird player who is aware of the weaknesses created in his position (and every opening has inherent weaknesses and strengths) understands how to develop his army to minimize weaknesses, while simultaneously boosting his strengths.

#2 - This is funny AND instructive!  I agree that all Bird' players should allow themselves to be mated a few different ways with some variations of the Fool's Mate.  One example (since I play From's Gambit) is 1. f4 e5 2. g3? exf 3. gxf?? Qh4#.  If someone chooses to play Bird's Opening, they should be aware of these aspects of their position, and how to handle the position effectively. 

#3 - Both diagonals can be very easily covered with the standard 1. f4, 2. Nf3 (covers threats on h4) and 3. e3 (the a7-g1 diagonal is covered).  White can add boosted coverage of the e1-h4 diagonal by playing into Leningrad systems with g3, and at this point, he needs to simply be aware of any tricks on a7-g1, which can be answered either by e3 or Kh1 in most instances.

Kh1 is actually a reasonably popular concept, to vacate the king off of the g-file, which is used for attack in many lines.  It is part of the give-and-take of the position.  You give yourself an extra attacking pawn in terms of f2-f4, so you have to be willing to likewise give your king a bit more safety in some instances...but this is not a big deal.  It isn't much different than in lines where people choose to play 0-0-0 and then follow-up with Kb1, all just to get that rook on the d-file in one go AND gain king safety.  Chess is give and take.

#4 - This is highly biased, although SOMEWHAT true.  Many Bird players come to 1. f4 because they want a decent system where they don't have to invest hours over today's theory.  This is highly practical, ESPECIALLY for someone who is never going to be making an actual living at chess!  For someone like Dzindzi, who dedicates his entire life to chess, and has time to study all the new theory, perhaps the Bird is not the best choice.  From a practical standpoint, I can list the strengths and weaknesses of the move 1. f4 and show that there is balance in this system.

Strengths - 

Fights for control of e5, don't have to relocate knight to push f4 later in the opening, pre-creates support for knight on e5, helps to create strong pawn wedge in lines such as NxN fxN, threatens ideas such as fxe5 (or fxg5) and f5, which are all attacking concepts in most instances, AND yes - less theory to deal with

Weaknesses - 

Does not aid in piece development in the opening, slightly weakens kingside, committal move

So let me see - I was able to name a LOT more positives than negatives out of this opening.  I play it quite a lot, so I think I can state that these strengths and weaknesses are objective.

Perhaps the most interesting weakness I picked up not too long back from my teacher - he stated that Bird's Opening was a committal, defensive setup.  This is true - 1. f4 is HIGHLY committal.  You cannot move that pawn back, so you need to be aware of why you are playing it.  Plus, after a move like 1...d5, Black has the lion's share of central control, and White must be able to work around that control of e4.  These are not huge issues, and they come up when we discuss the positional aspects of the Bird.  In short, it is committal, but not losing by any means!  

As another Russian GM said (and Danielsen quoted) - 1. f4 is a normal move!  Not necessarily the best (referencing moves like 1. e4 or 1. d4)...but it is a normal move!  Fully playable, all the way up to Super-GM.

Why would a super-GM not adopt this setup as anything more than a surprise weapon?  Part of it deals with the lack of flexibility in the first few moves, and what White is seeking to gain out of the opening.  Often, White will have to invest his second move on Nf3, to cover the e1-h4 diagonal, and then his third move will often be confined to a small pool of ideas (e3, g3, or b3 are all popular ideas).  In setups such as 1. d4, White has far more freedom to be flexible in his opening endeavors.

This doesn't mean that Bird's Opening is a poor choice, nonetheless - it simply means that in spite of the more committal nature, White still has an ABUNDANCE of ideas at his control, especially once we approach the middlegame, AND he still fights for the win from move 1.  

I know I wrote a LOT here, but I have a lot of thoughts about 1. f4, and I can say that it is NOT for the lazy student...unless they like to lose quickly. 

As a matter of fact, his idea about that "huge attack" - I generally don't even do the standard attack that he is referencing, because it is easy to spot and easy to rebuke.  I prefer more subtle approaches to the opening, where play can happen all over the board. 

As for the Dutch Defense, yes, both theories can work together, since often the Bird is played as a Dutch with move in hand.  However, sometimes White must be ready for setups like 1. f4 d6, which is outside of the Dutch realm...as well as multiple systems involving concepts such as ...d6/...e5 to attack the pawns.

#5 - I often allow this and relocate my bishop at this point.  For instance, I will have a bishop on b2 and the pawn lock you spoke of happens.  I can then bring the bishop to c1 (because that pawn lock also makes their pawn breakthrough on the queenside harder to achieve) and my bishop helps out with kingside attack after a good f5!  This is part of understanding the Bird from a positional angle.

#6 - Any good Bird player most likely understands From's Gambit better than his opponent.  There are still instances where White will loose...but in principle, he is up a pawn for cheap shots.  Keep in mind that White at ANY time can give back that pawn for development purposes!

From's Gambit is nothing short of an equal game, where White gains material at the cost of a pawn.  Anyone who believes in playing Poisoned Pawn variations, and enduring some offense in the name of playing for a win, should have no problem investing effort in the White side.

Besides, even then, there are LOTS of anti-From's lines (such as the early e6!? which converts the system into a type of King's Gambit setup), and of course 2. e4 if you wish...and even 3. Nf3, inviting Black to take back on e5...there are a host of ideas.  

I can tell you that my win percentage against From's Gambit is higher than against any other defense Black plays against me, and I secure my quickest wins most often by facing From's Gambit.  This is because my opponent is often a person who wants a quick mate and doesn't understand the positions I create.  I end up often with a HUGE pawn center (not every time, but often) and decent piece play.  There are still some kinks in my openings that I must work on, but that goes for any opening.

With all of this said...I play From's Gambit against the Bird almost exclusively, just as I play the Staunton Gambit almost exclusively against the Dutch.  The reason is due to the manipulation of the pawn structure, which is a type of strength that both the White and Black player enjoy while playing both the Bird and the Dutch.  This puts the f-pawn player on a slight defensive, and the gambiteer can often enjoy a positional offensive that can last many, many moves, which creates room for error from the opponent who is enjoying the material advantage, at the cost of being defensive.

I have SO many more things I could say in response here...but in short...why don't you come join our group?  We have lots of great discussions there, our vote chess matches are full of discussion (whether win or loss) as well, and in short, we have fun!

Hope you check us out!

I haven't played the Bird in a while but I think if I were to, the best response to From's gambit would be to play 2. e4 and transpose into the King's gambit which has definitely not been refuted.

NewEngland, if you study your theory, here is an example of the types of positions I see very often against From's Gambit:

The OP is trying to say that you should experiment with supbar openings to find ways to lose to try to improve. I personally try to win and that gives me better opportunities to win games :p

Unless one considers the Dutch a "subpar opening", there's nothing wrong with White playing it a move ahead.

John Watson presents a good treatment of the Dutch & Bird together in "Mastering the Chess Openings" vol 4, along with an interesting meditation on reversed openings in general. He says:

... 1 f4 is prefectly respectably from a theoretical point of view and, along with other unorthodox openings, has been receiving renewed attention.

If you know the Dutch, Bird's is a reasonable choice if you want to get Black out of his usual defenses and you have a plan for From's ahead of time.