In an absolute vacuum, yes, it probably is. The problem is that it can lead to complicated positions that can easily blow up in white's face if you haven't taken the time to learn all the variations.
Something like the Italian Game is probably objectively inferior but significantly easier to learn and play with confidence. imo.
@ KyleJRM - Good point regarding complicated positions. Right now I play the less complicated Exchange Variation, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6.
In a recent OTB game my opponent played 4...bxc6, which I find more pleasant for White. Black can do better by capturing away from the center with the d-pawn, opening the d-file and the c8-h3 diagonal for two pieces, Qd8 and Bc8.
But...but...but...Fischer said e4 was best by test =P. You can't argue with the man that single-handedly beat the Russians!
Bobby Fischer said something quite similar. Good one. :)
1.d4 is powerful. The opportunity to play the Queen's Gambit, not allowing Black to play the Sicilian...all good for White.
I'm taking a vacation from 1.d4 to allow a journey through a bit of chess history with 1.e4. I simply must experience the King's Gambit at least once in my life, as an example.
Bobby Fischer said something quite similar. Good one. :)
1.d4 is powerful. The opportunity to play the Queen's Gambit, not allowing Black to play the Sicilian...all good for White.
I'm taking a vacation from 1.d4 to allow a journey through a bit of chess history with 1.e4. I simply must experience the King's Gambit at least once in my life, as an example.
Almost at random, I picked d4 when I first started playing chess as well and played it exclusively for a long time. Looking back, I have to admit, I kind of agree with those now that say it slows your development as a chess player.
Almost at random, I picked d4 when I first started playing chess as well and played it exclusively for a long time. Looking back, I have to admit, I kind of agree with those now that say it slows your development as a chess player.
There is this generalization of 1.e4 for tactical play, while 1.d4 for positional play. With that said, after the opening phase, good tactics and technique wins in the end.
Back to the Ruy Lopez. :)
Do you thing White has a greater positional advantage after the Ruy or a 1.d4 opening...like the queen's gambit?
"White has more to say in the centre, since he will be able to play d4 without much trouble, while Black will find it difficult to achieve ...d5. White's pieces have more room to move around in, while Black's game is considerably cramped in many variations." - Irving Chernev on the Ruy Lopez
SuperGM Robert Huebner and former world champion Anatoly Karpov pull out all the stops in this thrilling slugfest:
Bobby Fischer said something quite similar. Good one. :)
1.d4 is powerful. The opportunity to play the Queen's Gambit, not allowing Black to play the Sicilian...all good for White.
I'm taking a vacation from 1.d4 to allow a journey through a bit of chess history with 1.e4. I simply must experience the King's Gambit at least once in my life, as an example.
Fischer said that 1.e4 is "best by test". The data does not support his assertion. 1.d4 has a full percentage point better score than 1.e4. See "How to read NIC Statistics".
SuperGM Robert Huebner and former world champion Anatoly Karpov pull out all the stops in this thrilling slugfest:
They probably had some hot dates lined up that night, so they were conserving their energy.
Bobby Fischer said something quite similar. Good one. :)
1.d4 is powerful. The opportunity to play the Queen's Gambit, not allowing Black to play the Sicilian...all good for White.
I'm taking a vacation from 1.d4 to allow a journey through a bit of chess history with 1.e4. I simply must experience the King's Gambit at least once in my life, as an example.
Fischer said that 1.e4 is "best by test". The data does not support his assertion. 1.d4 has a full percentage point better score than 1.e4. See "How to read NIC Statistics".
1.d4: Best by test!
White's score over the entire NIC Database is 54.8%, as can be seen in the graph below.
Of White's two main opening moves, 1.d4 scores significantly better than 1.e4.
The main culprit responsible for this state of affairs is portrayed in the fourth bar.
Fascinating. What is the main culprit? I can't read what is under the fourth bar.
Perhaps 1.d4 gives White better winning chances than 1.e4 because of the excellent drawing chances with the Petroff Defense?
---
Game Explorer Stats for the Petroff -
White wins - 32.2%, Black's combined win/draw - 67.8% !!
With these stats, perhaps the Petroff puts a stop to 1.e4 in a must win situation for White, at the Master and up level? In the last World Championship, 1.d4 was THE move. I don't remember why.
The fourth bar is the Sicilian Defense.
Yes, the Sicilian is the sole reason why 1. e4 isn't as effective as it used to be at grandmaster levels.
That said, one or two percentage points should not be enough for anyone under 2400 to change their style of play, though experimenting with different openings is always fun!
According to my database, the overall scores at +2500 elo are :
So it's pretty close anyway...
Yes, the Sicilian is the sole reason why 1. e4 isn't as effective as it used to be at grandmaster levels.
Actually at the GM level, it would appear that the Sicilian is doing less well lately than it used to, and it is somewhat more offbeat defenses such as the Caro-Kann, Pirc and Alekhine that have been doing better in recent years.
In any case, if you know a particular opening well, it seems likely that you will get better results with it than trying to follow the fashions, and getting stuck in positions with which you are unfamiliar.
My impression is that the top players consider either Ruy Lopez or Scotch be the only really serious tries for advantage after 1. e4 e5. Of course, other lines are also used but much more infrequently. If you see say Carlsen using King's gambit it's likely to be aimed for suprise weapon and unlikely to be repeated any time soon.
Having said that, even if that is true at the very top it doesn't necessarily hold among lesser mortals. Any opening you understand well, like to play and brings you good results is a good opening.
You know, it always amuses me to see amateur players debate which opening is "best". Unless your rating is over 2400 FIDE, any opening that doesn't have a specific refutation is playable. Below 1600, even openings that DO have a specific refutation are playable (I never lost with the Englund Gambit as black at that level). The player who better knows the opening and middle game patterns that come from it will be the one who has the advantage, regardless of the objective strength of the opening. And then the game will often be decided by tactics and endgame skill, anyway.
And count me among those who think low-intermediate level players (myself included) should stick to 1. e4 to get open games, so you can get better at tactical positions from experience. But the Ruy Lopez doesn't necessarily lead to an open game, so play just about any of the other 1. e4 e5 openings instead (Italian, Scotch, Vienna, Danish Gambit, Scotch Gambit, King's Gambit, Goring Gambit, Center Game, etc). The point is to shoot for a central pawn exchange early in the opening and active piece play thereafter.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 – Ruy Lopez
After reading Logical Chess by Irving Chernev, the Ruy Lopez may be White's best chance for a win. What do you think?
“ 3.Bb5 – The strongest move on the board here, this characterizes the Ruy Lopez, the most powerful of kingside openings. As Reuben Fine puts it, One reason why the Ruy Lopez is so strong is that the most natural sequence of moves leads to an ideal position for White.” - Irving Chernev