< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jan-26-06 | | Knight13: <sneaky pete> LOL |
|
Feb-07-06 | | Knight13: Henry Bird was still good doing 1889, but his strengh faded a little and didn't give him good results in the New York Interationals. But he still played well, though. Good enough to be 2200, at least. |
|
Mar-28-06 | | FHBradley: What is a 'subchampion'? 'Henry Bird -- a subchampion of the world' sounds well-nigh ridiculous to my non-native ears. |
|
Mar-28-06 | | Jim Bartle: In Spanish the word "sub-campeon" is commonly used to refer to a losing finalist or a silver medal winner. |
|
Mar-28-06 | | who: Bird has wins against players like Bernhard Horwitz, Howard Staunton, Wilhelm Steinitz, Louis Paulsen, Joseph Henry Blackburne, Simon Winawer, Johannes Zukertort, Mikhail Chigorin, Emanuel Lasker, and David Janowski. He even had a plus score against Adolf Anderssen.
Bear in mind that the latter part of this list are players who were more than twenty years younger than he. According to http://www.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Sin... he was number two in the world (behind Steinitz) for a short period of time. All in all, it seems pretty clear that he was far more than just an expert, and at his prime he was a world class player. |
|
Apr-29-06 | | Knight13: Yup. One of my favorites, <who>. He won many games against great players, but he lost many in his later years. For example, he got crushed by Steinitz pretty bad. I wouldn't be suprised if he was the sub-champion! :) |
|
Oct-08-06 | | Knight13: Henry Bird's first page is all marked with Kibitz signs! |
|
Jan-13-07 | | Themofro: Being a player who plays Bird's Opening a lot, here are my personal opinions for the set up white should get. It mostly depends on black's play.
Variant 1
1. f4 e5
2. fxe5 d6 (if black plays the inconsistent Nc6 as is becoming common nowadays, DO NOT play Nf3 (that gives black a free and very strong irregular Lasker) instead return the pawn with what i find to be substantial advantade with 3. Nc3!)
3. main line continued. exd6 Bxd6
4. Nf3
Subvariation 1
...4. g5 (Lasker's variation.i It is quite popular though in my experience it is hard to play against but not that strong. With the Lasker variation black tries for many 1-2 move tricks, if white can defend with a level head he should get an advatage, though that's no easy task)Subvariation 2 Nf6 (this leads to the Mestrel, which is extremely complicated and no one really knows who is better. Usually black plays Ng4 soon after.) Variation 2.
1. f4 d5 (more common than the From's)
2. Nf3 (here it all depends on what move order black plays, i beleive that the following move order is best for black.)
...2 g6 (preventing white's fianchetto which is very powerful) Subvariation 2.1 (the classical Bird's, which is quite strong i find)
3. e3 Bg7
4. Be2 c5
5. 0-0 Nc6
6. d3 Nf6
7. The key position here there are many alternatives, and it just depends on your personal taste, I personally prefer the straightforward Nc3, but thats just personal opinion. Subvariation 2.2 The Antoshin (not that strong if black knows how to defend, but i hvae never met someone who plays it correctly as black. A great shocker weapon, white will often castle queenside and play Rdg1 and go for the kill, i've won many games within 25 moves or so with this variation, though ultimately I do't find it the main line.) 1. f4 d5
2. Nf3 g6
3. d3 Bg7
4. c3 Nf6 (or whatever)
5. Qc2 white aims for e4 again, just like in the above mentioned classical variation to set up a very stong pawn duo at e4+f4. |
|
Jan-13-07 | | Themofro: My continued list of variations and ways to play the Bird's: variation 3 ( the stonewall, very solid, I believe Knight13 mentions it earlier, only problems are two built in weaknesses, bad queenside bishop and e4, so white should aim to fix those two, if he's successfull he'll have a definite advantage.)
basic move order is something like this.
1. f4 d5
2. Nf3 g6
3. e3 Nf6
4. d4 (or something to that effect.
Varitaion 4. the leningrad bird. in this system white finachetto's queenside, it's a very solid system with good chances for advantage, but i find it less aggressive (albei solider) than others, ont the best things is it avoids the so called "recipe" lines, wipes them off the board completely) basic setup of leningrad is as follows 1. f4 d5
2. Nf3 g6
3. g3 Bg7
4. Bg2 (white then castles and plays for the center)
Variation 5 the queenside fianchetto and the very dangerous Bird/Orangutaun The reason that in all those aforementioned lines black plays ...2 g6 is to prevent white from fianchettoing queenside which can be extremley powerful. The normal line is to just play b3, but i prefer the more adventerous b4!?, this is the bird/orangutaun, it's mostly untested (like most of these variations) but i have been getting great results with it. I find that if white can easily fianchetto queenside then he should have a substantial advantage. Also in these lines white aims to be able to play Bb5 pinning the knight on c6 and then trading to get complete dark squared controll, this is why it's so important for black to stop qhite from fianchettoing, though white is perfectly fine regardless. Last variation the so called "Recipe" variation. In almost all opening books that cover the Bird's (many don't period) they offer an early Bg4 as a solution to all of blacks problems, which is naive. The Bird Leningrad destroys the recipe, though other variations to find 2, but with very sharp play. Lets look at the leningrad first.
1. f4 d5
2. Nf3 Nf6
3. g3 Bg4
4. Bg2 Nc6
5.0-0 Bxf3 (expecting 5. Bxf3 then e5 and play isn't bad at all. but... white instead plays)
6. Rxf3 e5
7. fxe5 (usually you don't take, but here it's very strong) Nxe5
8. Rf5 and black is already in trouble.
In the recipe variations that aren't the leningrad, white should NOT capture with fxe5 (then black has a excellent position), instead pursue a stonewall, once black plays e5 then white should play d4 and white is fine with a slight edge. Those are most of the main variations for both white and black. In general I would say take the queenside fianchetto if they let you, and again Bb5 if they let you as well. If black plays an early g6 to prevent you from fianchettoing I reccomend either the classical or the antoshin. The leningrad is a perfectly fine and solid system, although not as aggressive as others, though still peffectly fine. If black play's the From either accept or transpose to the king's gambit, both are fine. And if black plays the so called "recipe" then fight back with a stonewall position and a slightedge. The stonewall position is important cause it shows up a lot from other variations as well. there's nothing wrong with a stonewall, it just depends on yor personal preference. Well thats about my variations of the Bird's in a nutshell. Note: if anyone is really interested in learning the Bird's Opening i extremley highly reccomend Timothy Taylor's Bird's Opening, he's a IM who plays it all the time, has all the variations, and shows what to avoid, what black seeks to get and he shows a balanced view that inculdes both wins for white and black. Highly reccomended. |
|
Jan-17-07 | | Themofro: Ack correction on my previuosly posted Leningrad Bird. White fianchetto's kingisde i meant not queen side. |
|
Jan-17-07 | | ganstaman: <Themofro> Thanks for all this. I've skimmed it and will read it in more detail soon. The Bird is one of my favorite openings, and I've probably played it more than any single other opening. About Taylor's book, is it mostly just a bunch of lines and games, or is there a good amount of discussion too? The Bird seems rather straight-forward to me, so I don't know how much discussion there could be, but it would be nice to know if I'm missing anything. |
|
Jan-18-07 | | Themofro: <gangstaman> Tim Taylor's gives a lot of lines and games (53 totally annotated games, unless i miscounted, lol). He gives a healthy portion of games that white loses (to show that the opening is NOT infallible and what to avoid, etc. I personally prefer opening books this way over books where every game the side the author is championing wins, but that's just me). It also shows you what he feels are black should try to do and how white should try to avoid it, or play against it etc. By discussion do you mean like whether or not the Bird's is unsound because of the (supposed?) weakening of king safety, or do you mean what you aim for in this line and what are the critical themes, etc, he definately goes over those. Or do you mean something totally different? |
|
Jan-30-07 | | howardb86: Thanks Themofro on your info for this opening. Found it helpful as I'm a newcomer to chess ! Certainly like the opening. |
|
Jan-31-07
 | | keypusher: <Themofro>
What if Black begins 1. f4 Nf6? Larsen vs Fischer, 1962 |
|
Jan-31-07 | | who: <Themofro> After 1.f4 d5 you can prevent black's fianchetto on g7 by playing 2.b3 (recommended by Soltis). Amazingly annoying then is 2...Bg4, but still you should try it. |
|
Feb-01-07 | | Themofro: <Keypusher> if black plays ...1 Nf6, white should just continue as normal with 2. Nf3 in my opinion. The immediate ...1 Nf6 lines almost always transpose anyway, usually into the recipe vatiation.
A notable alternative is 2. b3. I haven't been able to find anything glaringly wrong with 2. b3 against Nf6, however in my opinion it is illogical. By playing ...1 Nf6 then black has basically let white fianchetto queenside whenever he wants to. Even if black plays g6 a move earlier than white plays b3, white can still fianchetto because of the knight on f6. Since black cannot avoid the fianchetto then, i do not beleive that white should rush it, but instead plays normal moves like Nf3 and e3 etc. ...1 Nf6 is a very common response to the Bird's but i beleive it to be inferior to ...1 d5 because it hands white the fianchetto which in combination with the knight at f3 and the pawns at f4 and e3, usually mean complete center domination of the dark squares. ...1 Nf6 is playable for black, but to play it is practically garunteed that you will have to try to nullify whites fianchetto or work around it, not easy to do. Overall i beleive that ...1 d5 is stronger. <who> yes it is amazingly annoying, as such i play nf3 first. 2. b3 is playable atlthough i beleive inferior. In my experience white aims to fianchetto with good reason but he should not be overly hasty about it. A example is the following game which almost everyone on here should recognize.
Lasker vs. Bauer 1889
1.f4 d5
2.e3 nf6
3.b3?!
here black did not play ...3 d4! and ended up getting killed by Lasker's brillian double bishop sacrifice. however if he had, black white's center pawn structure would have cracked regardless of what he did.
While ideally all Bird's players love to have a fianchetto on the queenside, thats not the only good line. An example is the classical. If white fianchetto's on the queenside then he has nothing protecting the f4 pawn and as such not reccomended. However if white does NOT fianchetto the classical is very strong and well-neigh unavoidable for black.
In my opinion and experience if white is allowed to fianchetto he should do so without much worries, but I firmly beleive that white should play Nf3 and e3 first to solidify the center at least a reasonable amount and get a grip on the dark squares, THEN add the bishop fianchetto. Of course that's just my personal preference. In some lines though like the previuosly mentioned Nf6 line and basically whenever black plays Nf6 before g6 there is no rush, as such white should definately take his time there. |
|
Mar-15-07 | | Knight13: Too bad he didn't play play Daniel Harrwitz (or at least the games are lost). |
|
Mar-24-07 | | Themofro: Another line against the Recipe variation which i'm afraid i left out on my mini reportoire is what i'm going to call the Danielsen Recipe, named after GM Henrik Danielsen who's the only GM what currently plays the Bird, btw, if your interested in learning about the Bird or just in good chess etc. he has a wonderfull website http://www.videochess.net/ where he posts live blitz games, analysis, openings, etc., worth checking out for sure. Anyway, in this varaition we have
1 f4 d5
2 Nf3 Bg4
3 e3 Nd7 (most logical follow up, from here the knight protects the square e5 without putting it on c6 and allowing Bb5) Now we enter the Danielsen variation
4 h3!? Bxf3
5 Qxf3 (attacking the d5 pawn) Ngf6 and now
6 g4!? the bayonet thrust!
Looks a bit crazy but completely sounds and oftens leads to complete steamrolling on the kingside for white. Depending on who you ask (Tim Taylor) you should sack the d5 pawn to try to get a initiative, or (Henrik Danielsen) you should not, lol. Overall it's a fascinating system leading to unique games and i would highly reccomend it at least for Bird's players to try it out. |
|
Mar-30-07 | | Themofro: I have recently posted a complete analysis (with commentary and ideas from both GM Henrik Danielsen himself and IM Timothy Taylor) on the Bird's Opening (A02) page about the game that i first saw the Danielsen Recipe in and which first inspired me to play that variation. |
|
Apr-14-07 | | Knight13: Burille vs Bird, 1889 click for larger viewBlack to play. (Solution on move 22)
|
|
Jun-19-07 | | GamerMan: Of all the people that were never the leading chess players of their time, who do you all think was the most important? I think Reti, Nimzowitsch, and Bird have to be considered pretty high up there. |
|
Jun-19-07 | | TefthePersian: Vsevolod Rauzer That guy. |
|
Jun-19-07 | | Themofro: <GamerMan: Of all the people that were never the leading chess players of their time, who do you all think was the most important? I think Reti, Nimzowitsch, and Bird have to be considered pretty high up there.> Those are all good choices. Off the top of my head, i would add the other 2 cofounders of the hypermodern school Tartakower and Breyer as well since the work of those four was so important historically (other two being of course Reti and Nimzovitch). I think Larsen would also have be up included, and some legends like Korchnoi might also deserve mentioning. |
|
Jun-30-07 | | ChessDude33: I'm sorry if this has already been mentioned but what do people think about Henry bird saying Steintz would get trounced by Morphy? "I trotted Steinitz the closest heat he ever contested. He beat me 8 to 7, with 6 draws. This was in '67. In '58 Morphy beat me 10 to 1, with 1 draw. Steinitz claims that he is a better player than ever Morphy was, but I think my record with each is a fair test of the strength of the two. Steinitz claims that when I played with Morphy I was out of practice, but I cannot explain away my crushing defeat by that great player in any such way. I never played better chess in my life than when he beat me." ---henry bird
Every since I read this quote it has fascinated me. It does slightly appear that Bird has a harder time against morphy than steinitz (perhaps age is the factor?). |
|
Jun-30-07 | | Karpova: Bird's results against Steinitz and Morphy are no indication of who might have been stronger. Karpov beat Gulko 5-1 with 2 draws according to this database (1976 to 1996)
Gulko beat Kasparov 3-1 with 4 draws according to this database (1978 to 1995 with a short draw in 2001)
Draw your own conclusions... |
|
 |
 |
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|