Talk:Bird's Opening

Hobbs gambit

I have added something about the very uncommon Hobbs Gambit, but I've not been able to find a definite source for the name. The chessgames database has an "R Hobbs" who seems to fit the bill. Does anyone have more info regarding the gambit's namesake? WarmasterKron 16:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hobbs was Richard Parker Hobbs, a Californian. 91.105.34.240 (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC) The original (seminal) game was John Spargo vs. Richard Parker Hobbs, Berkeley 1977. The game was won by Hobbs in 44 moves. The full score of the game can be found in 'The Myers Openings Bulletin' Volume 2, Number 5 published July, 1981.

Unfortunately, this gambit was not named after a chessplayer, but after the philosopher Thomas Hobbes,(just joking!) whose catchphrase "nasty, brutish, and short" appears without attribution in the book in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.162.136.76 (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hypermodern opening?

Would Bird's Opening constitute as a hypermodern opening? Tommy Kronkvist talk contribs 20:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean 1.f4 by itself? Probably not(see the "Hypermodern" article on here). If anything it lends itself to occupation of the center, especially the theme of a white knight on e5, or in the stonewall formations. In certain lines involving fianchetto of the white queen bishop, i suppose it may be considered "hypermodern", especially if he fianchettos the kingside as well, but Bg2 is more for supporting a kingside assault or the center occupation Ne5, both of which are definitely not hypermodern concepts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.157.196 (talk) 06:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable lines?

The article has a whole section devoted to something called the "Hobbs Gambit" (1.f4 g5); it also mentions 1...h6, intending 2...g5. The article also mentions 1...Nh6, supposedly recommended by NM Martin Appleberry, intending an ...e5 gambit if conditions warrant it. No sources are cited for any of these lines. IM Timothy Taylor's recent monograph on the Bird's doesn't mention any of them. I also looked at ChessGames.com's Opening Explorer. That datbase, with over 500,000 games, has one game with 1...g5, one game with 1...Nh6 (not by Appleberry, and not involving an ...e5 gambit), and zero games with 1...h6. Eric Schiller discusses 1...g5 and 1...Nh6 (the "Horsefly Defense") here, but nothing in his discussion indicates that either line is notable. To the contrary, he considers both moves dubious. Schiller cites three game fragments involving 1...g5 (two by Hobbs himself, from over 30 years ago), and one game fragment with 1...Nh6. He doesn't mention 1...h6 at all. An Internet search for "Hobbs Gambit" gets a few hits, such as people discussing (and some ridiculing) 1...h6 on a chesspub.com forum, and a really horrible video about a Hobbs Gambit game that the author, "Michael", played against an unnamed opponent.

In short, I have seen nothing that suggests that 1...g5, 1...h6, or 1...Nh6 is notable. Nor have I seen any reliable sources asserting that any of these moves are any good. (It is questionable whether Schiller is a reliable source, but even he doesn't endorse any of the moves.) As such, I think we should consider deleting discussion of these three moves from the article. Even if we don't do that, I certainly don't think that the Hobbs Gambit warrants its own section of the article. Thoughts? Krakatoa (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I toned down the Hobbs Gambit part, it's now inline and not a headed section. The gambit is real, I'd heard of it. There are numerous low grade reference to this line I don't think Wikipedia yet required every line of text to have a reference next to it. If it does then the Schiller one would be fine with me. I know some would object, but on what bases? Chess snobbery perhaps. SunCreator (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the Eric Schiller article?:

Schiller has written over 100 chess books, more than anyone else except Fred Reinfeld and Raymond Keene. However, Schiller's books have often received scathing reviews. Chess historian Edward Winter criticized them for large numbers of spelling, factual and typographical errors,[6][7] and even flagrant plagiarism.[8] Writing for Chess Cafe, Carsten Hansen said Schiller's book on the Frankenstein-Dracula Variation of the Vienna Game was "by far THE WORST BOOK I HAVE EVER SEEN".[9] Schiller's Unorthodox Chess Openings famously received a two-word review from Tony Miles in Kingpin: "Utter crap."[10]

I had looked at it a few times for book references but not read it before now. The article is unbalanced and quite a good example of why Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. SunCreator (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Schiller is the most reviled and least respected author of chess books in the world. It seems to me that by definition, he is not a reliable source. Krakatoa (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion Krakatoa, but it's not mine. While Schiller has some critics and written a few poor books with plenty of typos. It would be inappropriate to assume everything he wrote is not of a reliable nature. I have read a number(at least four) of Schiller books and typos aside found them most useful and reliable. SunCreator (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not just my opinion. The above block quote is a representative selection of respected chess reviewers' opinions of the Schiller oeuvre. If you can find reliable sources who have good things to say about Schiller's work, by all means add them to the Schiller article. That article currently contains one sort-of-favorable quote about Schiller, which is by John Watson, who has co-written three books with Schiller and thus is hardly disinterested (although I consider him a reliable source in general). The way that got there is that Sam Sloan complained about the supposed imbalance of the Schiller article and insisted (absurdly) that Camembert should be banned for inserting quotes critical of Schiller into the Schiller article. (Read the talk page for the Schiller article if you want. It's all there.) Camembert then found the Watson quote, which is the most flattering statement anyone's ever been able to find about Schiller, put it in, and Sloan declared that he was satisfied. Krakatoa (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

On Unorthodox Chess Openings, wasn't Joel Benjamin a co-author in addition to Schiller to the first edition? (The second version is Schiller only, but I haven't seen the first edition.) Regarding the article in question, I think anything covered in Taylor's Birds Opening should be notable enough for coverage. I don't have that book, but the index is available on Amazon, and ridiculous moves like 1...g5 don't seem to be covered there. 1...h5 is covered... in a way ("If you can't figure out how to handle 1...h5 you need a different chess book"), so is 1...Na6 since it's the only response which hasn't been played. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, regarding Unorthodox Chess Openings, there are other reviews out there than "utter crap". While Alexander Baburin's review on Chesscafe [1] is overall negative, and he advises against buying it (he rated it as 2 stars) he does find some nice things to say about it, among other things "the book is well-written - with good balance between basic introduction to the principles of opening play, observations of rare opening lines and some factual material." Much of the criticism is related to the lack of usefulness it has to a chess player, and since chess books are written for chess players (and not source-hunting Wikipedia editors), that is a pretty serious concern. That does not necessarily mean that it cannot be used as an alright source for historical background. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that Benjamin was a co-author of the first edition. (See the list of Schiller books at the end of Eric Schiller.) I agree that anything Taylor covers in his book is notable enough for this article. (I wouldn't say that he "covered" 1...h5 and 1...Na6.) Taylor addresses 1...d5, 1...e5, 1...c5, 1...b6, 1...Nf6, and 1...f5. Also reasonable, of course, is 1...g6, with a likely transposition to a standard Modern, Pirc Defense (quite possibly the Austrian Attack, normally reached by 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.f4), or even King's Indian position (such as the Four Pawns Attack, normally reached by 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4), or a Sicilian after, e.g., 2.e4 c5. Taylor obviously was aware of 1...g5 and 1...h6, since he wrote on page 201 that according to ChessBase.com Black has tried 19 of the 20 legal responses to 1.f4 (i.e., everything except 1...Na6). His decision to omit those moves is of some significance, suggesting that he considers them in the same ridiculous class as 1...h5. Krakatoa (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

N. B. It is possible (as i have done) to play the "Horsefly" not with the intention of ...g6, but as a reversed "Krazy Kat" e.g. 2...f6 & 3...Nf7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.162.136.76 (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Proponent of Bird's Opening

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=56533 plays Bird a lot. He also has a popular and high-quality youtube channel with many Bird Opening lessons and live games: http://www.youtube.com/user/krakkaskak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.245.213.213 (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Needless change by IP

Nothing wrong with this text: "Timothy Taylor's book on Bird's Opening puts the main line Bird's Opening as follows: 1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 g6 3.e3 Bg7 4.Be2 Nf6 5.0-0 0-0 6.d3 c5." The IP didn't like it because "Misleading statement - statistically never considered main line" [2]. But that makes no sense. The sentence didn't claim the line was the main line, it clearly claimed only that Timothy Taylor used it as the main line for/in his book. I made this even clearer by changing the sentence to "Timothy Taylor's book on Bird's Opening suggests as a main line: 1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 g6 3.e3 Bg7 4.Be2 Nf6 5.0-0 0-0 6.d3 c5." But the IP reverted that in favor of his pet language "Timothy Taylor's book on Bird's Opening prefers this classical approach: 1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 g6 3.e3 Bg7 4.Be2 Nf6 5.0-0 0-0 6.d3 c5." which is 1) unnecessary, 2) ambiguous. --IHTS (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to say that there are two "main lines" in Bird's Opening, depending on whether White develops the Bishop on e2 or g2. Nunn's Chess Openings gives 1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.0-0 0-0 6.d3 c5 7.Qe1 Nc6 and 1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 g6 4.Be2 Bg7 5.0-0 0-0 6.d3 c5 7.Qe1 Nc6 as its two main lines. The databases have 3.g3 and 3.e3 about equally popular. Move order is fairly flexible for both sides. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Since the advent of advanced computer chess-playing programs, it's probably unwise to use Nunn's Chess Openings (published 1999) as a reference work in 2018. This is especially true regarding its content on Bird's Opening, as none of the book's authors played it regularly or were considered experts of 1.f4 - the book only contains a single page dedicated to these lines, mostly being derived from old databases. For example: the leading chess programs of today (i.e. - Stockfish, Komodo, Houdini, etc.) all quickly recognise that the move 7.Qe1 in the second of the two main lines given above is a mistake, leading to a significant advantage for the player with the black pieces (assuming best play). 172.79.28.138 (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

We don't do original research on wikipedia, we simply reflect what the sources say. It's actually quite boring if you're looking to do research into openings, but that's our brief. Running an engine and posting the results is fine in a forum or on your blog, but not in wikipedia main space. In any case 7.Qe1 is not currently included in the article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a fair comment about original research, so I shall simply point out the recommended continuation (7.Nc3) by the acknowledged expert in this line, Timothy Taylor, taken from his widely respected book on the subject (Bird's Opening - published 2005). Opening research may seem boring to some, but I still think it worthwhile to inform the interested reader from the best sources currently available. 172.79.28.138 (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)