oh wow that is so offensive how do you come up with those
Why lower rated players should learn bird's opening
Sort:
yuree, I will disagree with you. To play Bird's Opening, it is CRITICAL to understand the pawn structures and piece play. Albeit, I will agree that the move 1. f4 is naturally more limiting than some "better" openings, because White must handle two main weaknesses of 1. f4 - the weakened e1-h4 diagonal, and the lack of open lines for his pieces. Therefore, much of the game becomes, as my teacher states, "defensive" in nature. It is true that many mainline Bird lines are hypermodern, inviting Black to gain space, and then attack it. It is just a theory of chess practice.
I won't really offer my thoughts on this game, except that the early advance of ...d4 here is not effective, even as a gambit, because White gets too much pressure on b7.
Instead of 4.e3, I have tried 4.h3 with decent success. black almost always take the knight and white end up with 4 pawns in the kingside. Having 4 pawns in the kingside does not discourage people from making a king hunt, but they often fail because white has an extra pawn on the kingside. Also the extra f pawn controls the e4 square.
Even if black makes a pawn storm on the kingside and castle queenside, black still has difficulty cracking open white's kingside if white plays correctly.
It is just an idea.
Nov 6, 2015
0
#106
petrosianpupil wrote:
And give Stefan credit he has done a great deal of excellent work on some obscure sidelines
Yes, he deserves a lot of credit for his analysis. If you have the proper follow up moves, you can play the opening.
Game this morning with some interesting early invasions from Black that I worked to repel. I did not play the last part of the game optimally, but that should not discredit that I was able to get into the middlegame with a fully playable position.
yureesystem wrote:
Short time gratification (some win against low rated players) instead hard work and getting stronger, is a good way to stay low rated. What makes the Bird Opening appealing is that simple a strategy is to attack the king and a very limited pawn structure, a ambition player cannot expect to grow and improve with such limited opening repertoire. I see in my chess club players who played Colle, London system , English opening, Reti opening, Larsen Attack 1.b3 and Bird opening and a low rated player playing this type opening will never reach a competent rating of 1800 otb; there is a reason why. To beome competent player you need to play 1.e4 first, you learn how to handle different centers, pawn structures, piece placement, open and close position, ambition player will become proficient all area of chess. Ruy Lopez is the education in how play chess, even the Russian know this, not the Bird opening. There was a player who ask for my help, I suggested to study tactics, Modern Chess Strategy by Pachman and play only 1.e4, his rating went up four hundred points, from 1400 uscf to 1800 uscf. Every experts and masters I know have played 1.e4 first and than play other thing later, even Tony Miles has played 1.e4 first.
I disagree with you.
The openings you mentioned are solid openings.
You can not claim a person is unambitious by playing a solid line!
It is blasphemy.
You have to crawl, than walk, before you can run.
The lines you mentioned are solid lines often recommended to beginners.
It is because they are simple to understand.
You can not expect a beginner or low rated player to play an opening like a Ruy Lopez or Sicilian in the begin of their chess career.
It is to complex.
They need something simple.
It is like math.
You start off with addition.
Than subtraction
etc.
Slowly building up!
If you throw them into a complex line
It will discourage them more than help them.
The reason your chess club members stay low level is because they settle!
It is a huge difference between having no ambition and settling.
If you ask your club members if they wish to be a Grand Master.
I am sure they would all say yes.
The fact they say "yes" means they have ambition to be a better player.
The problem is many people settle into line's, position's, or even idea's.
I will explain to you how it happens.
They start off as a beginner.
They try and find beginner lines!
They take up a line such as the London System for example.
They play the line for several weeks, months, or years.
They end up falling in love with the line.
They than begin to settle with that line.
Which is what leads to there own demise.
They settle and refuse to try other things.
Once they refuse to try other things that is when their chess begins to fall or they become stuck in a low ranking.
The reason why is simple.
It is because they have not experinced other lines, positions, or ideas which could influence the way they play there line currently!
You see yureesystem the problem is not with the "lines".
The problem is with the "person".
petrosianpupil wrote:
yureesystem wrote:
Short time gratification (some win against low rated players) instead hard work and getting stronger, is a good way to stay low rated. What makes the Bird Opening appealing is that simple a strategy is to attack the king and a very limited pawn structure, a ambition player cannot expect to grow and improve with such limited opening repertoire. I see in my chess club players who played Colle, London system , English opening, Reti opening, Larsen Attack 1.b3 and Bird opening and a low rated player playing this type opening will never reach a competent rating of 1800 otb; there is a reason why. To beome competent player you need to play 1.e4 first, you learn how to handle different centers, pawn structures, piece placement, open and close position, ambition player will become proficient all area of chess. Ruy Lopez is the education in how play chess, even the Russian know this, not the Bird opening. There was a player who ask for my help, I suggested to study tactics, Modern Chess Strategy by Pachman and play only 1.e4, his rating went up four hundred points, from 1400 uscf to 1800 uscf. Every experts and masters I know have played 1.e4 first and than play other thing later, even Tony Miles has played 1.e4 first.
I reached 1950 OTB playing f4 and dutch. I did play e4 for a short while when I started but never had time to study so dropped it to play f4. Best thing I could have done and f4 has many options and systems. there are transpositions into e4, d4 b3 systems but lots of stand alone ideas. I even got a draw against the great Tony Miles you mention (i was an exchange up) in a simul from playing f4 against him so not just good against patzers.
I always welcome your input. And thank you for sharing your otb chess expriences. You and I are very close to otb rating, mine highest was 2110 uscf making it FIDE 2010 and right now is at 2011 uscf so at fide 1911, my last chess tournament I played sloppy and deserve to lose some rating points. You are one of the rare ones that can play the Bird opening and get to a very good rating of 1950.
I just sharing my chess expriences and what I learned, for me starting with 1.e4 help me a lot in developing my chess skills, it is true 1.e4 is very frustrating at times. Studying Morphy's games has help me not being afraid to play open position, and I also have study Fischer, Karpov, Capablanca, Lasker, Steinitz , Nimzovich, Rubinstein, Alekhine,Shirov, Kasparov and many past and present masters and grandmasters. I have also study tactics and endgame and middlegame books, I am well rounded player. One my biggest mistake is studying too much opening when I developing myself as a player, I believe it has hinder my chess growth. You stated you played 1.e4 for a short time, maybe this actually help you get to much higher level then most chess player who avoid 1.e4. I saying a player who studies 1.e4 will be well rounded player, he or she will understand the center better, make better and sounder plans and understand the pawn structure better too. You correct that the Bird opening can some diversity in pawn structure, it is the knowledgeable player who will take advantage of the opportunity that comes in a position; making the correct plan is the beginning of become a master. Once a player get to 1800 otb, he or she can experiment the opening, even less dynamic opening like Colle or London system a can player who 1800 otb make much better plan than lower rated player in the same opening; you see too often, for less skill chess player every opening is an excuse for an attack on the king regardless of pawn structure or the demand of the position; reason is they have not take the time to acquire true knowledge that will help them make better plans in a position.
X_PLAYER_J_X wrote: I disagree with you.
The openings you mentioned are solid openings.
You can not claim a person is unambitious by playing a solid line!
It is blasphemy.
You have to crawl, than walk, before you can run.
The lines you mentioned are solid lines often recommended to beginners.
It is because they are simple to understand.
You can not expect a beginner or low rated player to play an opening like a Ruy Lopez or Sicilian in the begin of their chess career.
It is to complex.
They need something simple.
It is like math.
You start off with addition.
Than subtraction
etc.
Slowly building up!
If you throw them into a complex line
It will discourage them more than help them.
The reason your chess club members stay low level is because they settle!
It is a huge difference between having no ambition and settling.
If you ask your club members if they wish to be a Grand Master.
I am sure they would all say yes.
The fact they say "yes" means they have ambition to be a better player.
The problem is many people settle into line's, position's, or even idea's.
I will explain to you how it happens.
They start off as a beginner.
They try and find beginner lines!
They take up a line such as the London System for example.
They play the line for several weeks, months, or years.
They end up falling in love with the line.
They than begin to settle with that line.
Which is what leads to there own demise.
They settle and refuse to try other things.
Once they refuse to try other things that is when their chess begins to fall or they become stuck in a low ranking.
The reason why is simple.
It is because they have not experinced other lines, positions, or ideas which could influence the way they play there line currently!
You see yureesystem the problem is not with the "lines".
The problem is with the "person".
It is not the opening that makes a player stronger but actual chess knowledge they must actually acquire. When a player is starting chess one worst mistakes is limiting their opening lines, they start to rely on simple lines they can comprehend like the Colle or London system, I know one talented asian boy who played only the London system and became 1800 uscf, but when I look at his game he is making the wrong plans or setting up the wrong pawn formation; I point out his plan is incorrect or pawn formation not right, he is so bright he immediately see his mistakes, he is really rare because most player will argue with you why they did that move even when it is wrong. He still makes incorrect plans or setup the wrong pawn structure, it is not his lack of chess talent, it is his lack diligence, he might of became master if he started correctly with 1.e4. One thing I noticed is a player who opening is limited is they have poor understanding in the value of minor pieces, when is bishop superior to a knight or when is the knight better than a bishop. I save many lost position because I understand this better than my lower rating opponent, I had one game were my bishop was a really bad bishop and I nearly won the game because my oponent who was 1850 uscf and was very greedy and capture a poisoned b2-pawn and all sudden my bishop became a monster and dangerous and I drew instead of losing. Chess knowledge is more important than opening but 1.e4 is a must if you want to become higher than a mere B-player 1600-1799 uscf, I rarely see a player who studies the Bird opening get to expert (2000-2199 uscf), for me I have not see one but I see player who started with 1.e4 and became an expert.
Nov 6, 2015
0
#111
Since I started playing 1.f4 my rating(s) here went up for ~ 200 points. I even reached 1900 in blitz, and I could probably move further if I had taste for longer games.
So, nothing wrong with picking up single opening and work it out, to some point where You get opponents who know exactly for what they need to prepare.
If You were some top GM, it would be pretty much stupid to hold on to single opening, right ?
But, if You're just patzer like rest of us, with less capacity to memorize so many variations, single opening is just fine.
yuree, I will disagree with you. To play Bird's Opening, it is CRITICAL to understand the pawn structures and piece play. Albeit, I will agree that the move 1. f4 is naturally more limiting than some "better" openings, because White must handle two main weaknesses of 1. f4 - the weakened e1-h4 diagonal, and the lack of open lines for his pieces. Therefore, much of the game becomes, as my teacher states, "defensive" in nature. It is true that many mainline Bird lines are hypermodern, inviting Black to gain space, and then attack it. It is just a theory of chess practice.
When first started playing in a chess club my first rating was 1162 uscf, I was very lucky to studying Morphy's games and was playing 1.e4, in one year and half I became 1800 uscf; I also study a lot tactics and middlegame book and wet hrough a lot past masters and grandmasters games, it took another one year and hlf to become a expert and with first expert rating 2019 uscf. My friend and I started at the same time, he is still rated at 1600 uscf to 1400 uscf, he played English and Bird opening, never once played 1.e4, I wonder why he is low rated player? I study correcly and dared to play 1.e4 and became an expert in three years and my friend is still low rated, he never obtain at least a decent 1700 uscf. Must be his opening choice and other player who refuse to be bold and take the time to study chess properly. My friend lack of chess knowledge is so apparent, I have elementary knowledge in the Bird opening but my understand of minor pieces is superior to players below my rating, I understand pawn structures and different centers well; I had to point out how to place the pieces better, how to put pressure in the center and different pawn structure setup, my friend had DVDs on Bird opening and had Taylor book on the Bird opening and he still could not understand Birds without my explanation.
All I can say is what you want most from chess,is to play for fun regardless of rating or get to a higher level in chess skill.
The reasoning there is because Taylor did a terrible job of explaining the Bird. I studied Taylor's book intensely (it was one of my first chess books) and struggled to understand the Bird, until I got a Soltis book. At that point, it made sense. Taylor somewhat denigrated coverage of lines that the Bird came out of, such as 1. f4 d5 2. Nf3 c5 3. e3 Nc6 4. Bb5. Without studying lines like this, it is hard to understand the roots of the ideas.
I think that studying 1. e4 is good. I don't want to state that this is a bad thing. I am just stating that 1. f4 is a decent move. I also agree that it is good to study other ideas, to learn other concepts, and then later maybe be able to apply them in your opening of choice.
BirdBrain wrote:
The reasoning there is because Taylor did a terrible job of explaining the Bird. I studied Taylor's book intensely (it was one of my first chess books) and struggled to understand the Bird, until I got a Soltis book. At that point, it made sense. Taylor somewhat denigrated coverage of lines that the Bird came out of, such as 1. f4 d5 2. Nf3 c5 3. e3 Nc6 4. Bb5. Without studying lines like this, it is hard to understand the roots of the ideas.
I think that studying 1. e4 is good. I don't want to state that this is a bad thing. I am just stating that 1. f4 is a decent move. I also agree that it is good to study other ideas, to learn other concepts, and then later maybe be able to apply them in your opening of choice.
It is interesting that you mention the exact line my friend had a question.
I learn this setup from Nimzovitch's games.
Well since we are on a Birds Opening forum.
I have a question to all the Birds Opening experts out there.
I have heard there is a line in the Birds Opening known as the Polar Bear.
Is that true or no?
Yes it is true. The Polar Bear is f4 d5 nf3 g6 g3 bg7 bg2 nf6 0-0 0-0 d3 c5 c3 nc6 na3
@yureesystem
Post #136
In the diagram you showed are you sure they play 9.Nbd2?
I thought the idea was to play Nc3 - Na4 followed up with c4.
The nbd2 is what i play, with ideas of c4 or nc4
Flip side - working with Bird's Opening also provides you with a great defense, the Dutch!
I know I have blown this forum up, but it gives some exposure to ideas you face in Bird's Opening from time to time.
My opponent decided to play a rarely played, yet interesting sack line on g4. It leaves me with an exposed king, but Black must prove that his piece is worth the two pawns and the open lines. May the best man win.