In an online slow game, (a move required every few days) a very talented player
played the Fred against me. You all know, 1. e4, f5, then exf5, with an “interesting” game for black. I then out or mainly curiosity after the game watched a video on the Fred, in which the speaker/video creator kept admonishing “I cannot see why anyone would play this defense”, and
this has to be “one of the worst defenses in chess”, etc. He did point out
however, that there were a few lines in which various chess engines stated favored black. Which after review, this might be a very interesting defense in a blitz or bullet game. The video was a YouTube “CoffeeHouse Chess” production.
Loren Schmidt, a Nebraska player who reached around 2400 and played for Japan in an Olympiad (he spent several years there teaching), used to do a lecture on The Fred (sometimes called The Phred), showing how powerful it was for black. In one of the lines, white ended up having to choose between being a full piece down or forcing a perpetual check. Of course, he went through lines so fast you really didn’t have time to find better alternatives. I think he wrote an article on it for the Indiana state chess magazine back in the 80’s.
I generally take stuff with a grain of salt when someone says, and then tries to very quickly show you how strong a particular line is, when the line has been proven over the years to be sub-par opening or defense. The lecturer or whatever you want to call the person, usually whips through several lines that look to be extremely strong or forcing a draw, when accurate, or even decent play would or could easily defend against the lines.
When playing online chess, occasionally come across an opponent, almost always playing black against me, in which they try and do a massive offense. The lynch pin of black’s attack is a very early pawn to h5, under the hope and prayer that I will take a sacrificial piece, usually a knight, to clear the H file with the Queen + Rook + Bishop to attack immediately. It’s not a specific line from the opening, but the general setup for black is easily done in a variety of lines. Obviously, one could also do playing as white against black, but in my experience, it’s something the opponent might do after the middle game is well underway. I’m sure that’s more of an indication of my playing style when using the white pieces.
I’ve always felt that particular attacking style was something lower level players find on youtube or at the local chess club. In any event, the obviousness of the attack is clear the moment they move the H pawn from e7 to e5 before they move either the F or G pawns.
Loren’s lecture was done tongue-in-cheek, you kind of had to be there. I’ve never read the article he said he wrote for the Indiana state magazine. (I think Loren got his first PhD in Indiana.)
Loren has a phenomenal memory for chess games. One time in the 90’s when he was visiting Lincoln he gave a simul with about 15 participants. Two weeks later I asked him about one of the games and he wrote out a game score for it and several other games from that simul. That same visit, he was reminiscing with another long-time Lincoln player, and was showing how the opening they were playing at the time was similar to a game they had played many years ago, and how that game compared with similar positions in games he had played in Japan and the Phillipines in the past several years, demonstrating all these variations about as fast as you can move pieces around the board.
There’s a youtube channel, which the name escapes me, but clearly targeting players one step beyond learning the rules of chess.
The videos are fairly short, and he seems to focus on easy traps. The narrator’s videos are full of superlatives like; “If you move [piece] here, the opponent has to do this. Then you move [piece] here and opponent must respond by doing this. Then you just move [series of forced moves], and the game is yours.”
It’s quite entertaining for about the first 2 clips, then your left wondering if the guy knows anything outside the basic rules of chess and his bag of opening tricks and traps.
Granted, if your opponent has just learned the game of chess and knows enough not to just move pieces randomly, there probably is a chance the opponent might stumbled on the move he “has to do”, which is almost always a defensive move the opponent could just ignore and develop normally.
Playing Freddie in a correspondence game is brave. If your opponent looks up Freddie in any chess database he will find ways to get a substantial advantage.
I feel better knowing that a large percentage of news articles on the internet are poorly written and full of spelling and grammar issues. -Most common spelling mistake is using a spell checker and clicking the wrong suggested word, so that the sentence doesn’t make sense.
One time I had to play an opponent who tends to be booked up in general, and booked up against my openings in particular. I asked a few people for advice, and someone dared me to play 1. b4 (The Orangutan/Polish/Sokolsky). So I played it and lost (not necessarily due to the opening – my opponent was a stronger player than me). Later in the tournament, I got back at my advisor by daring him to play 1. h4 against a lower-rated opponent. Being a good sport, he did so and got a draw.
Personally, I might try 1. b4 again – it’s semi-respectable, and only a little worse than 1. b3, which has been played by some strong GMs (Larsen and Nakamura), but I wouldn’t be caught dead playing 1. h4 in a serious game. I wouldn’t play “the Fred” either.
There used to be a reasonably strong player (Class A, if I remember correctly) on the Wisconsin tournament circuit who played nothing but the Grob (1. g4) as White, and did OK with it. But I wouldn’t be caught dead playing that in a serious game either.
There is an extensive–too extensive–thread on this opening in this forum, brought back to life periodically (and most recently four months ago) by a fanatical proponent of the opening.
