I've been playing 1.d4 to the point where I have all the stuff I need to know down. I read an article a long time ago about 1.d4 not being boring. But does it really make since to play this if you want tactics? I like positional play but I like messy positions too. And playing 1.d4 and 1.e4 doesn't seem very easy at all so I may have to commit to one. The only time I play a sharp game is with the QGA, Marshall Gambit which rarely ever occurs or the Slav/Semi- Slav when I can throw in g2-g4. Can I really switch tunes with just 1.d4 or do I have some thinking to do?
If you want excitement after 1.d4, then play the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit. Not sound at the 2600 level, but that excludes only a few.
I used to have the exact same view as you. I played the Catalan and gambitted the house. I like the Latvian against the Semi-Slav as well
Well it's only sound in a "people under 2000 might blunder badly so you could win" kind of way.
I have personally lost to it, but it's far from a sound gambit.
Playing with the KIA or the KID is fun, no gambits but still fun
anti-moscow rules
Only good for blitz. Like the Smith-Morra. And good is an exagerration.
Don't restrict yourself from 1 d4 just because on average it isn't as sharp at e4. It could still give you something tactical that 1 e4 might not have for you.
creepy!
Personally I've always thought d4 was more aggressive then e4 in most cases. When you play e4 half the time you're going the be playing the spanish or the petrov! With d4 you can choose aggressive lines against practically every black response.
For example:
3.e4 in the QGA
Shabalov/Shirov gambit in the slav
Four pawns attack vs Kings Indian & benoni
4.f3 in the nimzo-indian
epishin or lines with early f4 vs. benko
and much much more!
I'd like to lobby for a line in that classical that is currently crushing the KID, also there is very sharp Nimzo Qc2 line with an early e4 after 4. Qc2 0-0 5.e4 is razor sharp.
Otherwise, I agree with ericmittens that f3 is sharp or even a3!? can be (transposes usually) and is better than 4. Qc2 IF white is looking for the most affressive play v. the Nimzo.
Unfortunately, I have put so much time and effort into the Qc2 lines and have become too neurotic to do the work to switch out that part of the repertoire....but at least I have a mighty drawing weapon with White v the Nimzo!
how about the torre attack
The Torre is more of a non-theoretical positional try.
I don't know... saying you pretty much know all you need to know about d4 is a rather bold statement.
Against the Nimzo the leningrad 4 Bg5 is certainly sharp/aggressive but out of fashion. It was a favorite weapon of Spassky and Timman. One of my very few wins against a GM ( OTB ) as from the white side of this line. If you decide to try it look at Spassky's games and Timmans.
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.
