Anyone ever heard of this? It’s a Opening Gambit for black. I call it the German Opening with various names for various variations. First move is always
- e4 f5
I see no compensation for the pawn if white takes it. The opening is called the “Fred” in some sources.
I’ve also seen it called the ‘Phred’.
Dr. Loren Schmidt (a 2400 player originally from Nebraska) used to do a very funny lecture on the Phred. As I recall it started out:
1 e4 f5
2. exf5 g6
3. fxg6 …
From there Loren would throw out a series of variations in which White had the choice of getting into a mating net or taking a draw by repetition. Of course he threw them out fast enough that if there were other lines that gave White a solid game nobody had time to find them.
I believe Loren wrote an article on the Phred for the Indiana state chess magazine back when he was working on a PhD at the University of Indiana. (I think he has 2 PhDs, one in English and one in Philosophy.) This would probably have been in the early to mid 80’s.
If anyone has a copy of that article, the Nebraska State Chess Association would like a copy for its archives.
It’s called Fred - B00a Kings Pawn.
Here’s a web page you might quite interesting.
that’s how I start mine, then branch off from there:
- e4 f5
- exf5 g6
- fxg6 Nf6
- gxh7 Rxh7
- … …
It doesn’t seem like a good idea to be so greedy (4. gxh7).
White should play something a little more solid (like 4. d4 maybe? If 4. … hxg6, 5. Bd3).
Then Black would get practically no compensation for the pawn.
After 5. Bd3 Rg8. Good thing white did not play Bd3 right away blocking the d2 pawn. If white played Bd3 before d4 (which most people do because they get complacent) then white loses.
Really??? I tried 1 e4 f5, 2 exf5 g6, 3 fxg6 hxg6, 4 Bd3 just to see (that’s the only reasonable continuation I could see for moving Bd3 before move 5).
Fritz and Rybka chewed on this for around an hour and only came up with a pawn + advantage for white. Perhaps black gets an attack that’s complicated for white to defend or maybe it was beyond the program’s “horizon” but it seems unlikely enough that I’d like to see some “proof” of this claim. A concrete list of moves would be a good start.
I’m surprised that after this series of opening moves, the evaluation from Rybka was “only” a little more than a one pawn advantage for white.
The general rule of thumb to refute one of these off-beat gambits is to win one pawn, if the other side seems to get inadequate compensation for it, but don’t get greedy and instead just play active, solid moves.
I see. See if black is better after
- e4 f5
- exf5 g6
- fxg6 Nf6
- gxh7 Rxh7
- Bd3 Rg7
as one of the lines
Hmm. That would be going “out there” a bit. First taking the 3rd (also known as “sucker”) pawn, and then making a development-hindering move. I wouldn’t play that way, myself. The attack MIGHT be beyond the program’s “horizon” unless I let it run for a while, but a human should know when to be prudent. Of course, that doesn’t mean all humans will… 
Even if the computer “refutes” black’s line, that doesn’t mean white would be able to find it OTB.
No, like I said before: grab ONE pawn if you don’t think black will get adequate compensation for it and then play solid moves. You’ll probably get a winning advantage. “Winning” more than one pawn should only be done if you’re SURE you’re not going to be attacked out of existence. Who has time to have prepared defensive strategies against the Fred??? Unless you play it yourself, you’re not going to know all the ins and outs, so avoid the needless complications. Take the solid material advantage and just don’t play passively OR recklessly.
As opposed to against playing the Fred, I actually meant for this analysis to be for playing as the black pieces. that’s why I created those lines for black since it seems like the best move. I play this opening as black sometimes and catch a lot of people off guard, especially during blitz. The common response I’ve seen though for white is:
- e4 f5
- e5 …
That may be OK, but the way to refute a gambit is to accept it. (just don’t get carried away).
As for playing this as black, you might catch a few players off guard, but why subject yourself to this? It’s like Sam Sloan’s favorite response to e4: 1. e4 e5, 2. Nf3 f6. Even if you find this is sometimes playable, and occasionally traps an unwary opponent, for the most part it’s just asking for problems.
Great input! I’m surprised that not a lot of people have given their opinions on this topic. Also, any Grand Masters want to join in on this?
If you like the Fred, check out the Irish Attack: 1 Nc3 e5 2 f4!!!.
After 1 e4 f5 2 exf5, I hadn’t seen 2…g6 before. It looks interesting. White should consider 3 d4, with the idea of 4 Bd3.
I favored the Fred in time-odds games, and always played the so-called “true Fred”, which is 2…Kf7!. (The natural move 2…Nf6 is supposed to be “refuted”, which is pretty funny if you stop to think about it.) But sadly I had to give up the Fred when my opponents caught on to 2 e5!. So I switched to the Latvian (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5), which is “better” because it prevents e4-e5. It’s the Nimzowitsch recipe: restrain, blockade … only then destroy.
If you like The Fred maybe Sam Sloan can recommend a good book on the Damiano Defense…
In my copy of Unorthodox Chess Openings (1st), Schiller says of the Fred, “Perhaps the single worst defense at Black’s disposal, it should never be used by a serious chessplayer.”
Don’t see much to argue with there. 
Though I admit the shock value might put me off my feed… (And yep, 3. fxg6 would be tempting. But I’d rather try any other solid move and hope for …gxf5 from Black. 
3. Bd3 comes to mind, as I think that enables 4. fxg6 if really greedy.
It’s not a defense for black, it’s a gambit opening for black.
I notice that 2 exf5 scores 68.7% (Edit: 67.2%) whereas 2 e5! scores 75%. Gotta love statistics.
BTW, the correct name for the opening 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f6 is “Damiano Gambit”. See for example Howard Staunton, The Chess-Player’s Handbook [1847], pp.60-61.
There are more openings in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
The real problem with trying to use statistical data here is the extremely small data size. There’s only a total of 80 games here.
---- Move------------Frequency—Score
1: exf--------------55: 68.7%----67.2%
2: e5----------------8: 10.0%----75.0%
3: Nc3-------------- 7: 8.7%-----71.4%
4: d3----------------7: 8.7%-----28.5%
5: Bd3--------------2: 2.5%------25.0%
6: d4----------------1: 1.2%-----100.0%
Even the larger set of games is only 55 total games. This proves very little. By statistics, d4 would be best because it has 100%. Well, that’s only one game. On the other hand, it does clearly show that the preferred response is exf which was played in over 2/3 of the games.
My database has only 43 total games. Which break down this way:
1: exf---------------43 games: 28 wins 65%---- 6 draws 14%---- 9 losses 21%
2. e5-----------------7 games: 5 wins 71%------ 0 draws---------- 2 losses 29%
Also in my data base is a game where White played Nf3 with 100%, likewise for just one game.
If my database had just one more game where Black wins against White’s e5, it would look like this:
- e5-----------------8 games: 5 wins 62.5% ----- 0 draws ----- 3 losses 37.5%
So with only one game added, there would be a huge change in the stats.
One final note: This does not take into account the Elo of the players. That, in and of itself, is very significant for reliable statistical results.
It is a defense operning, in that black is the side which chooses to employ this opening. Hence being called the “Fred Defense.” So why not call it “Fred Gambit?”
It may also be considered a gambit, hence “Duras Gambit.” But a gambit usually causes a gain for the offering party in proposing the sacrifice. So what does black get out of it?
My own patzer analysis: I can’t see a developmental advantage - white is still free to develop naturally in any way white chooses, where black is almost forced to cover the own hole it makes on f7 and guard against cheap mate shots on Qh5 and Bg6 following Bd3, and guard against other immediate kingside attacks.
Does this really carry a time or initiative advantage? I don’t see it - any time or initiative advantage seems quickly blunted to me.
Is pulling White off of e4 really a positional advantage here? While there are a few games in my database where Black gets center control by d5, there are also several where White chooses d4 and recontests the center immediately.
King safety… f5 does nothing for black.
Interestingly, I found one game, Portelli-Gatej 1996, where White refuses the offered pawn and it transposes to a Staunton Gambit. (1. e4 f5 2.d4 fxe4 3. Nc6)
But, repeating my question earlier: What advantage does the Fred/Duras convey for black that qualifies it as a gambit, beyond just offering the material?
(And beyond making a patzer like me burn time from move 2, and going, “BuhWha???” 
)
Not saying it isn’t playable or you’re wrong, either… the note earlier about its advantage in blitz really made me think, as did your post.