1. e4 vs 1. d4
Sort:
This question is only real question for me. As black I feel comfortable when I face to either e4 or d4. However when I play white I don't know what should I play. I used to play e4, but I hate e5, which is possibly leading to Ruy Lopez. I tried to play Vienna or Bc4 to avoid Ruy Lopez but not quite well. So I begin to play d4. So far so good.
e4 vs d4
i feel d4 is better
e4 aims for next move d4 and controlling center
but d4 aims for c4 and attacking on queenside
It all comes down to which opening system you want to mangle.
I don't play either of them generally, but I find that e4 has so many more directions that can be taken in the game that as white one needs to be a lot better prepared. There are still quite a few variations starting with d4, but no where near as many as white so it is probably better for newer players and those who don't want to learn a lot of opening theory.
Based on GM games, White has a 38% chance to win playing (1.e4) and a 39% chance to win playing (1.d4)
D4, because it fits my style of play much better. I also like to open with Nf3 sometimes.
The good thing about e4 is that it allows you to form a non-e4-deficient center (which is a problem with d4).
The bad thing about e4 is that the Sicilian exists 
The good thing about d4 is that it takes 2 squares of the center - the queen is protecting the pawn, hence the extra square.
The bad thing about d4 is that it also allows Black to seize lots of center squares, making it a fragile position for both sides where a single mistake will destroy your control of the center.
Just a matter of preference.
c4!)
It all depends on your style and mood. 1.e4 tends to lead to sharper, more open positions while d4 is a more quiet, drawish game. I usually start out with e4 because it leads to more decisive and interesting games. Or you could always change things up and go 1.c4 or Nf3.
"1.e4 is the move you play when you're young, naive, and believe the world owes you something. Open positions, infinite horizons - what's not to love? Well, I've got news for you, buddy: it's a cruel chess board out there. Once the honeymoon period wears off and you haven't refuted that 11 year-old kid's Sicilian Najdorf (to say nothing of that geezer's Petroff Defense), you slowly realize that 1.d4 offers you closed and semi-closed value at 1.e4 respectability. Did I mention that it pairs well with 1.Nf3 and 1.c4 at no extra cost? So, you make the switch.'' IM John Bartholemew
pureluck wrote:
"1.e4 is the move you play when you're young, naive, and believe the world owes you something. Open positions, infinite horizons - what's not to love? Well, I've got news for you, buddy: it's a cruel chess board out there. Once the honeymoon period wears off and you haven't refuted that 11 year-old kid's Sicilian Najdorf (to say nothing of that geezer's Petroff Defense), you slowly realize that 1.d4 offers you closed and semi-closed value at 1.e4 respectability. Did I mention that it pairs well with 1.Nf3 and 1.c4 at no extra cost? So, you make the switch.'' IM John Bartholemew
And then the 2016 world chess championship happened heh.
AllogenicMan wrote:
pureluck wrote:
"1.e4 is the move you play when you're young, naive, and believe the world owes you something. Open positions, infinite horizons - what's not to love? Well, I've got news for you, buddy: it's a cruel chess board out there. Once the honeymoon period wears off and you haven't refuted that 11 year-old kid's Sicilian Najdorf (to say nothing of that geezer's Petroff Defense), you slowly realize that 1.d4 offers you closed and semi-closed value at 1.e4 respectability. Did I mention that it pairs well with 1.Nf3 and 1.c4 at no extra cost? So, you make the switch.'' IM John Bartholemew
Sounds like you're only being a slave to 'Bart-hole's lame and rather narrow-minded ideas! ... Virtually any opening can [later] transpose to a semi-/open or semi-/closed position, whether it arises out of the King-Pawn (1.e4), Queen-Pawn (1.d4) [or other] Openings - it all depends on how Black replies (or counters) to White's initial ([central] pawn) play. Conversely, 1.d4 (namely, if suddenly met by 1...e5?! - the Englund Gambit) is no better off than 1.e4 - in a strategic sense only (as even the King-Pawn Opening in itself can lead into some obscure closed positions); it (as well as 1.e4) should only be looked upon as a different - yet equal (to the King-Pawn Opening) - opening preference to a [White] player's opening arsenal.
And that's the way I see it! ...
The Ruy Lopez starts out as an Open Game, but often ends up as a double fianchetto defense with slow maneuvering around central pawn breaks. Improving your chess in general will be your best bet.
1.D4 is simply better in the current time than 1.E4, live with it.
hi Tobias :)
Real men play 1.f4.
Fixing_A_Hole wrote:
Real men play 1.f4.
Real men "flip them the Bird"?
One of the stupidest questions I've ever heard, with the stupidest answers I've ever heard, what on earth is that Bartholomew quote like how many drinks did you give him to say that
E4 is not all about aggressive tactical brawls like all the stereotypes say and d4 isn't all about patient and slow manovering. It's the same with those guys who trash talk the caro-kann like it's some dumb boring opening for 95 year old men, believe me it has plenty of play too. It's those same guys who make some stereotype of the Sicilian being the opening that will avoid all draws, give you a huge fight, etc. anyway my rant is over, see yo guys
e4 for life