14179 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Hi fellow chessplayers.
I've been having a little bit of an extensial crisis over the last few days, and it's on theory. I'm not at a level where theory is of any real importance yet, I've won games in sharp Sicilian battles on generall grounds and just calculation, and it seems there is still a bit of a climb before theory really sets in.
However, I can't decide upon 1.e4 or 1. d4, I enjoy them both immensily, so I've decided that the deciding factor will be how theory heavy they are.
1. e4 has the Sicilian, there is also the Spanish, but the spanish doesn't concern me, the theory there is easy to digest, and except for in a few cases, it's not to tactical.
What does 1.d4 has that is equally theoretical and sharp? I know there is alot of theory, but how is it shaped? I'd imagine that the gruenfeldt, like the sicilian has alot of lines that you just have to memorise, is the kid the same? Or can I get away with knowing ideas, plans and so forth? I do realise that at a higher level, I will have to learn exact lines and move orders, if I ever do reach that level.
So basicly, which move is the most theory heavy? 1.e4 or 1.d4?
Basically, if you play the mainlines of the Ruy Lopez and Sicilian, thats basically ALL of the theory of 1.d4 just for those two openings.
theres more theory in 1 e4
Definitley, but it is more interesting.
it depends - u can play simple systems in d4 or e4 with very little theory (exchange variations, four knights) but u can play ridiculously complex theoretical variations as well, such as the botvinnik system (d4 game) or the yugoslav attack (e4) which are both very sharp.
I don't agree -- look at the Gruenfeld, the Nimzoindian, and the Semi-Slav, just for starters. The Botvinnik Variation in the Semi-Slav is crazy with theory going way into the middlegame.
And you think this doesn't apply to the Ruy Lopez? With at least 10 mainlines for black (just in the closed!) with 100 years of theory behind each of them. Or the Sicilian, possibly the most analyzed opening in chess? No queen pawn opening has a learning curve like these two openings do. To say nothing of the french, Caro, Pirc/Modern...and a billion other things too.
To the original poster: This is not to say that you shouldn't play 1.e4, but playing the mainline against EVERYTHING can be a little crazy. I suggest a happy medium approach. For example, play the mainline sicilian, but don't play the absolute sharpest line against everything (6.Bg5 najdorf, Bc4 Yugoslav Dragon, etc...) pick some easier lines like the very thematic english attack, or some nice classical Be2 or fiancetto stuff. And against 1...e5 maybe consider the scotch or something like the Worrall attack in the ruy or even the exchange!
Speaking for myself, the reason I don't play 1.e4 is because I never found anything besides the Ruy Lopez that I really liked vs. 1...e5. But I wasn't and still am not willing to put in the theoretical work required to play the mainline Ruy. Ah well, I still bust out 1.e4 from time to time when I know my opponent will play a Sicilian.
I've played both e4 and d4. e4 definately has more theory thanks to the sicilian. Semi-slav is nothing in comparison. Sure semi-slav lines might be 20 moves deep but they are not 20 moves broad. d4 also much more transpositional play and is not as forcing and predictable as e4 lines. This is the reason, from what I've understood, why GMs nowadays go towards d4 rather then e4. Harder to prep forcing lines.
There is theory for both. If your goal is to avoid theory, play "systems" like the Colle or the London with 1.d4, or the King's Indian Attack with 1.e4 -- or try backgammon.
there is theory in both sure, but you named 3 lines where theory is needed. I could rattle out 30 lines immediately that you need to know up to move 15 at least to paly 1 e4
1.d4 can lead into the Semi-Slav Botvinnik, Nimzo-Indian Rubinstein or Gruenfeld Exchange, all of which are pretty theory heavy, but I agree that many 1.e4 openings run pretty deep in the main lines, especially in openings like Sicilian Najdorf Poisoned Pawn, Ruy Lopez Marshall or French Winawer Poisoned Pawn. You can of course choose one of the Anti-Sicilians, eg. Closed, Alapin, Grand Prix, Big Clamp, and other side lines if you want to avoid the theory.
Yeah but you can also simply play 1d4 minor lines like London System, Colle, Tromp etc aswell and skip all the theory. But just like in the minor lines to 1e4 you'll end up giving black easy equalization. So if you want to give black a run for his money you'll need to go fairly mainline and there is less d4 theory then e4 if you do that.
d4 is less theoretical but less interesting and less forcing than e4
For a newish player start with e4 and play 2 d4 against everything, dont bother learning any theory just have fun and learn to throw the pieces about.
After a while with that move over to d4
So if you want to give black a run for his money you'll need to go fairly mainline and there is less d4 theory then e4 if you do that.
If you know in advance that black is going to be heavily booked up, sometimes it's better to throw a little surprise in there somewhere. Especially over the board or at blitz, a key strategy is to get your opponent out of his comfort zone.
Well in blitz you can play anything obviously. Even Qh5 like some GMs do. I'm talking about classical chess obviously. And in classical chess you can try to convince yourself that playing minor lines is in your favor but at some point it will limit your progression simply because chess is about playing the best moves. Why would you want to limit yourself to playing the 3rd best move in the opening when you do not aim to do that in the rest of the game?
Also there are many other ways of getting your opponent out of his comfort zone.
What constitutes a minor opening is obviously a matter of definition. Lately, the anti-Sicilians have been doing a mighty brisk business even at the Super-GM level.
Also, if the argument is that one shouldn't shy away from critical lines because they may be the strongest, a case could be made that 1.e4 is more critical than 1.d4.
Both e4 and d4 have sharp lines and solid lines. I think e4 has more gambit lines than d4.
Not really. I don't see how you can come to that conclusion.
Lines that have more theory are usually the ones regarded as critical.
Critical lines do not imply more theory. That is not what critical means. It's like saying the earth isn't a big place because the sun is bigger.
10000 signs that without chess you have no life
by Samsch a few minutes ago
Sound Sacrifice in Old Steinitz?
by 1-10 2 minutes ago
The "Millenials" are the Greatest Generation!
by kaynight 4 minutes ago
Cannot access my homepage
by chesskingdreamer 8 minutes ago
Pirc. How to pronounce.
by Zigwurst 10 minutes ago
by bouncing_check 11 minutes ago
Beautiful Endgame Study
by firches 15 minutes ago
4/20/2014 - Nasty Surprise
by heintz007 15 minutes ago
by DavidReti 17 minutes ago
How good am I?
by rooooktaker 28 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!