BIindside wrote:
d4>e4
Seems that way to me... I play e4 against anyone that is at least 200 below me... otherwise.. Nf3 ftw!!
Why do people hate "d4" so much?
Sort:
Polish opening isn't too bad either :)
Just there oppinion I for one LOVE 1.d4 and hate 1.e4 as to me you get nothing out of it when playing agaisnt solid structures while d4 is VERY flexable and I for the life of me dont know who told the 2nd post guy otherwise even Kasparov said he prefers 1.d4 cause it has more richness and Guyula Brey even said 1.e4 is doomed to fail in the future of chess!
Chessdude007 wrote:
Fact is.. the opening is not just about you developing and placing your pieces in the centre, but about preventing your opponent from doing so.. I find d4 far more difficult to play against than e4 because it prevents me from playing e5, thus hindering the development of my pawns and minor pieces...
+1
[COMMENT DELETED]
Well, @chessmaster102, I prefer e4 if you really want to know and I don't usually fail with it. (Is it because I play d4 on the 3rd move? I have no idea.)
I think maybe there is more tactics and opening traps in e4 than d4?
[COMMENT DELETED]
I don't think it's bad.
Estragon wrote:
I'm a d4 player, and I completely reject the notion that d4 isn't "tactical." There are plenty of tactical opportunities and lines after d4 - study the games of Lasker, Pillsbury, Rubenstein, Capablanca, and Alekhine, and see how they generated tactics from both sides of the Queen's Gambit Declined!
1 e4 may get you into more early tactical skirmishes, but only by a few moves and only if one side or the only plays weakly. As has been pointed out, the Ruy Lopez as played today is more positional and less tactical than the QGD.
Openings are more a matter of personal taste than anything objective, and fashion has a big effect even on grandmasters. We can say definitively that d4 and e4 are the best opening moves, but there is no way to say one is better than the other.
Nonsense, c4 is winning for white.
Is it really d4 that people hate, or the Modern period of Chess as compared to the Romantic period of Chess? If only today's Grandmasters played like Adolf Andersson or Alexander Macdonnell, the World Chess Championship would be televised live by a major network - or so goes the dream.
Maybe if one could get a score of 3/5 - 2/5 in return for stalemating one's opponent, Chess players would have "something to do", some kind of win to play for, more often. (Since stalemate would be worth 1/5 as much as checkmate, not blundering into stalemate would still matter - instead of endgame theory being impoverished, it would be enriched, I feel.)
nobody is talking
Which is sharper, anti-moscow or botvinnik???
I can't decide!
thiskid1 wrote:
d4 is for positional players and e4 is for tactical players
I don't think I have ever seen a more incorrect statement about chess than this one.
I have played both 1.e4 and 1.d4 in he last 3 months alone, and I play a very positional game.
With 1.e4, you can play a positonal or tactical repertoire.
For instance, against the Sicilian, a tactican should play the Open Sicilian, a positional play can follow Spassky with the Closed.
Against the French, an agressive tactician can play 3.Nc3 while a positional player can go for the Advance Variation.
As Black, anybody can play the Sicilian. Leave the Dragon for your Tacticians while the Taimanov or Kan should be reserved for your positional players.
Many 1.d4 lines lead to extreme tactical play. King's Indian Four Pawns Attack, Leningrad Dutch, Benoni, and the Semi-Slav are all full of tactics.
You can easily form a positional or tactical repertoire with either 1.e4 or 1.d4.
People only play e4 because they are scared of tactics 
d4 is the tactical opening, these e4 players simply lie!
ETC.
You guys put to much pressure in the difference between tactical and positional.
A good positional player makes use of tactics to improve his positions. Little treats to displace a piece or the idea of a double attack to improve you position.
Just like a tactical player makes use of positional themes. Starting an tactical flank attack without controlling the center is a quick way to lose.
Both d4 and e4 can lead to tactical and positional battles. There are some opening variations with e4 where white can force a tactical battle but these bassicly all lead to equal changes as white has to make to many positional concessions to get tactical changes.
Just play what you like and combine posistion and tactics for the best results.
Even Tal played wonderful positional games when the position demanded it
My anti-moscow game isn't showing 
Everybody likes to trumpet the adage that e4 is tactical and d4 is positional. But for most of us patzers, you'll see tactics and blunders in both e4 and d4 openings.
There are some d4 openings that allow white to get into the middle game while easily avoiding the "mental patient wielding a meat axe" (DrSpudnik 2012). However, ultimately, every chess game still comes down to careful play, tactical vision, etc etc.
I've recently started using d4 and find I enjoy it - it leads to fun games.
Yeah, I wish I was a better tactical player myself... I need to study more... my endgame and tactical game should improve quite a bit if and when I do