[nullve]

I play the following (nameless?) variation of Fred's Defence

1. e4-f5
2. exf5-g6
3. fxg6-hxg6

a lot as Black (in blitz at a modest ~1400 level), and it would be fun to hear from fellow forumers how you would go about refuting it. Moves and reasoning, please!

[mgoetze]

Gee sure wish the forums were moderated...

[Zelandakh]

You should post this in the Water Cooler as it is not bridge-related. The main line is 2. d4 so I would suggest starting from there.

[nullve]

Zelandakh, on 2016-January-03, 16:12, said:

You should post this in the Water Cooler as it is not bridge-related.

Sorry about that.

Zelandakh, on 2016-January-03, 16:12, said:

The main line is 2. d4 so I would suggest starting from there.

That's the Staunton Gambit, by tranposition, but I thought main line Fred was either 2. exf5-Nf6 or 2. exf5-Kf7.

[Zelandakh]

ef Nf6 is certainly a line; Kf7 instead is new to me. After hg in your variation the obvious try is Qg4 followed by Bd3. Even something as simple as d4 ought to be winning for white objectively, with easy development to consolidate the extra pawn.

[gwnn]

Stockfish 7 is out, free and open source, you can also get it on Android. If you're interested in the objective evaluation, it is absolutely losing. If you're interested in what a bunch of random bridge forum contributors can come up with when they're not busy arguing about cheating scandals and alerting regulations, I don't know what the point of that would be. If you like random weird gambits maybe check out the Portuguese Gambit, with a very cool book on it recently out (Smerdon's Sicilian).

[nullve]

gwnn, on 2016-January-04, 05:00, said:

Stockfish 7 is out, free and open source, you can also get it on Android.

If you like random weird gambits maybe check out the Portuguese Gambit, with a very cool book on it recently out (Smerdon's Sicilian).

Thanks for the tips.

gwnn, on 2016-January-04, 05:00, said:

If you're interested in the objective evaluation, it is absolutely losing.

I know.

gwnn, on 2016-January-04, 05:00, said:

If you're interested in what a bunch of random bridge forum contributors can come up with when they're not busy arguing about cheating scandals and alerting regulations, I don't know what the point of that would be.

I thought it might be fun to hear bridge players/bidding theorists reason about the chess equivalent of a (dubious) bidding convention/system. After all, bidding theory and chess opening theory are strikingly similar fields, but bridge players might have a different perspective on chess opening theory than chess players who don't play bridge. I consider my own views on chess opening theory to be absolutely worthless, though, so I think must have been in a slightly silly mood when I started this topic.

[phoenix214]

That opening is bogus Why are you giving yourself a losing position on move 3?

[nullve]

phoenix214, on 2016-January-05, 11:58, said:

That opening is bogus Why are you giving yourself a losing position on move 3?

Because of the slapstick factor, perhaps, with White's confident king hunt, e.g.

1. e4-f5
2. exf5-g6
3. fxg6-hxg6
4. Qg4-Kf7
5. Bd3-Rh6
6. Nf3 etc.,

sometimes followed by Black chasing the white queen while developing all his pieces and establishing a strong centre. Which only proves that at intermediate level blitz, anything goes as far as opening theory is concerned. (Chances are that pieces will be blundered away a few moves down the road, anyway, and no opening can compensate for that.)

I also like to play serious openings, btw.

[Manastorm]

I describe openings like this: teach your friends how to bust unsound openings and learn nothing yourself. I guess it is ok to do it once to see how it works in practice, that is about it.