The f5 Opening

You’ve got several pages of it - probably more than it deserves.

surprised my opponent with 1.d4 f5 2.Bg5 on the recommendation of an old chess buddy named Gabe Rosenberg. Sac’d the exchange, won in 21 moves. One of my best tournament wins ever. Only time I believe I ever faced …f5, guess the word got out :slight_smile:… In skittles games, I had trouble against it (which is why I resorted to 2.Bg5

Sac’d the exchange? PGN or it never happened :smiling_imp:

Recently Chicago lost strong, old-time player - Morris Giles. I essentially played this against him in a game I should have won, but we drew:

[Event “Tim Just’s Open/Reserve”]
[Site “?”]
[Date “1985.08.03”]
[Round “?”]
[White “Bachler, Kevin”]
[Black “Giles, Morris”]
[Result “1/2-1/2”]
[ECO “A80”]
[Annotator “Kevin L. Bachler”]
[PlyCount “57”]

  1. Nf3 d6 2. d4 f5 3. Bg5 Nd7 4. Nc3 Ngf6 5. d5 e5 6. dxe6 Nc5 7. Nd4 Nxe6 8. Nxe6 Bxe6 9. e4 Be7 10. exf5 Bxf5 11. Bc4 Ne4 12. Nxe4 Bxe4 13. Be3 Bf6 14. Qg4 Qe7 15. O-O-O h5 16. Qh3 Qd7 17. Be6 Qa4 18. Rd2 Qb5 19. Bd4 Bg5? 20. Re1! Bxd2+ 21. Kxd2 Qg5+ 22. Re3?= (22. Kd1! ±) 22… Kd8? (22…Kf8, or 22…c5) 23. f4?= (23. Qg3!±) 23…Qxf4 (23…Qxg2+ 24. Qxg2 Bxg2 25. Bxg7 Rh7 26. Bf6+ Ke8 27. Bg8+) 24. Bxg7 Rh7 25. Qg3 Qxg3 26. Bf6+ Ke8 27. Rxg3 Rf7 28. Bxf7+ Kxf7 29. Bd4 1/2-1/2

I will play (f5) on chess.com against anyone if interested…

Why?

MCA, it’s fun to stay at the YMCA.

He has an out. He didn’t say who it was that had to be interested, so he could play something else and say he wasn’t interested.

True. Not only did he not say who it was that had to be interested, he didn’t say what it was that the hypothetical person had to be interested in…

I’ll gladly challenge anybody, and if I’m black and you play 1. e4 then I will gladly play 1. … f5

What is your handle on chess.com?

How much are you willing to pay?

Same name as here. Look at my past matches using f5 on chess.com

You didn’t answer both questions.

It appears that you played very weak opponents. You’ve confused the concepts of good moves with poorly playing opponents. The opening is terrible.

Gambling is not allowed in the USCF. You could get into trouble with the USCF…

I didn’t think a USCF-rated game was proposed.
The USCF does not regulate the non-USCF-rated games in parks (such as the NY one in Searching for Bobby Fischer) or non-USCF-rated club or internet games.

Moreover, GAMBLING wasn’t proposed. I didn’t ask how much you were willing to wager, I asked how much you were willing to pay. I have a standard fee for chess lessons, and given your inclination to insist on playing 1 e4 f5 as Black, and the very weak opposition you have faced, along with your insistence that this opening is ok for Black, it is clear that if I offer to play you that this will be a chess lesson. I have no desire to play a substantially weaker player who insists on playing an inferior opening “for the fun of it” - and hence my time here will be instructional for you to discover that this truly is a very bad opening.

So, I am wondering how much you are willing to pay in order to learn that, since you were unwilling to accept any of the free advice you received in the thread.

It’s Indiana University. Dr Schmidt was a nice fellow who too a bit of time to explain some chess ideas to a patzer like me.

Was he also at IU? I knew Loren Schmidt in 1983 when he was at Purdue - and he did indeed play the Phred at times.

Well, I’ve been posting about this opening and analyzingg this opening over at chess.com under the same thread title. I’ll be posting some revised opening theory and some diagrams in a few days.

  1. e4 f5 2. exf5 g6 3. fxg6 Nf6 4. Bd3 h5

EDIT: Can we insert png boards in these forums like other chess forums?

Kind of reminds me of a white gambit. Forget the name of it. Basically white pushes d4 and black takes with his e5 pawn (becoming a d4 pawn). White then immediately pushes pawn to c3, hoping black takes that offered pawn, which would be the gambit accepted.

Although it’s possible to take the c3 pawn, it’s not advisable. What white is doing is clearing the diagonals for a vicious attack on the diagonals using both bishops, the queen, and usually the king knight.

I wish I could remember the name of the line. It occasionally comes up in a game in Chess Life, I think it’s always been declined for the games I’ve noticed it being played in. I don’t think I’ve seen any grandmasters playing the line, at least recently. Hard to say with evolving chess theory if it’s an unsound gambit, or just out of favor with high level players. When I say unsound, I mean a GM would play the best line against it, most likely by declining it.

In any event, I remember the first time I came across the line. I naturally took the gambit and got crushed. Other times I’ve come across it, I declined it and either won or drew the games. I only played a handful of games along that line, so don’t read too much into me winning/drawing by declining it.

But I find declining it does give much more favorable conditions for black, since white is unable to launch his much anticipated attack, and is immediately in a slightly unfavorable position offensively. (Seems that opponents are compelled to play offensively in that line, even if the the gambit is declined. No idea why.)

In one game, white never did take my pawn back. After about 6 or 7 moves, I took the offered pawn, which my defenses were shored up against any attack on the diagonal.

Although I won the game, it was a blitz game, so I didn’t write the moves down. In any event, it really wasn’t all that memorable, except he waited too long on taking my pawn back. And the fact it was an opening I don’t come across too often.