i think that d4 leads to more complex positional positions, which can be tough for a beginner to understand thoroughly.
"Complex positional positions", sure. Have you ever seen beginners play?
e4 leads to a blunderfest, and d4 leads to a blunderfest. No difference.
E4 is better because the goal of chess beginners is not to win or avoid blunders. It's to get experience with as many tactics and different types of positions as possible. With D4 they will learn slower than playing E4 since there's less variety of positions.
With D4 they will learn slower than playing E4 since there's less variety of positions.
And this statement is based on what? It isn't even remotely true.
I googled d4 e4 "variety of positions"
and a lot of other people think the same as me. So based on consensus, I am correct.
There is a cool sacrifice line in the variation you showed as an alternative to Qg3. Not sure if you know it.
This variation gets really wild and tactical. There is a queen sac line here (if black plays innaccurately).
That google search does not give a single result that would talk about the same stuff as you do. At least not on the first few pages.
E4 is better because the goal of chess beginners is not to win or avoid blunders. It's to get experience with as many tactics and different types of positions as possible. With D4 they will learn slower than playing E4 since there's less variety of positions.
I'd say the number of positions is more or less equivalent. The difference is that beginners typically learn what the first masters had learnt, value of development, attacking king caught in centre etc and these themes are typically there in the open games. Of course the open games can be played at any level, it's not a "beginner opening".
i think that d4 leads to more complex positional positions, which can be tough for a beginner to understand thoroughly.
Michael Adams is an 1.e4 player, Karpov opened with 1.e4 till the 80s. One can build a fine 1.e4 positional repertoire. 1.d4 can also be played in a very sharp way as well.
Michael Adams is an 1.e4 player, Karpov opened with 1.e4 till the 80s. One can build a fine 1.e4 positional repertoire. 1.d4 can also be played in a very sharp way as well.
Michael Adams is an 1.e4 player, Karpov opened with 1.e4 till the 80s. One can build a fine 1.e4 positional repertoire. 1.d4 can also be played in a very sharp way as well.
This is actually a good video, and he gives away a small gem, which is the reason I switched to 1. d4 about 20 years ago, with 1.d4 you have more control, when designing your repertoire, over the mix of positional and sharp lines, as well as the mix of theoretical vs less theoretical lines, which in turn allows to "rightsize" a repertoire to each players sweetspot between richness of positions and not getting lost in too much theory.
It's also possible to do that with 1.e4 but with 1.d4 it's just easier to do this.
The book by Karolyi in Karpov endgames is also great, as well as his two role models for the two lines in Grunfeld exchange.
d4 is positional and good, but many people below 1600 just spam londons and colles and play passively, exchange everything, then draw with you.
There is a cool sacrifice line in the variation you showed as an alternative to Qg3. Not sure if you know it.
This variation gets really wild and tactical. There is a queen sac line here (if black plays innaccurately).
i do, but if black knows whats hes doing your screwed
i do, but if black knows whats hes doing your screwed
True, it's not sound but refuting it can be difficult. Even with good moves there is still some compensation, just not full compensation.
This is actually a good video, and he gives away a small gem, which is the reason I switched to 1. d4 about 20 years ago, with 1.d4 you have more control, when designing your repertoire, over the mix of positional and sharp lines, as well as the mix of theoretical vs less theoretical lines, which in turn allows to "rightsize" a repertoire to each players sweetspot between richness of positions and not getting lost in too much theory.
It's also possible to do that with 1.e4 but with 1.d4 it's just easier to do this.
The book by Karolyi in Karpov endgames is also great, as well as his two role models for the two lines in Grunfeld exchange.
I actually love both e4 and d4, as long as it's not the London. Openings like the Semi-Slav, Nimzo-Indian and King's Indian are very rich positions from both sides.
I prefer e4 because I enjoy playing against the Sicilian. Open Sicilian positions are extremely rich. Ruy Lopez is my 2nd favourite to the Open Sicilian.
(Like what was said in the video, if you don't enjoy playing against the Sicilian, then you shouldn't be playing e4. Simple as that.)
French is fun as well. I used to play Tarrasch but I decided I should switch to Nc3 and play Winawer and Steinitz. These seem like fun to me.
There are some fun, aggressive lines against the Caro Kann as well. I don't like the main line as much. Panov Attack, Fantasy and Advance Tal are all cool options I think.
Pirc and I'll take the white side of the Austrian Attack any day.
This is actually a good video, and he gives away a small gem, which is the reason I switched to 1. d4 about 20 years ago, with 1.d4 you have more control, when designing your repertoire, over the mix of positional and sharp lines, as well as the mix of theoretical vs less theoretical lines, which in turn allows to "rightsize" a repertoire to each players sweetspot between richness of positions and not getting lost in too much theory.
It's also possible to do that with 1.e4 but with 1.d4 it's just easier to do this.
The book by Karolyi in Karpov endgames is also great, as well as his two role models for the two lines in Grunfeld exchange.
I actually love both e4 and d4, as long as it's not the London. Openings like the Semi-Slav, Nimzo-Indian and King's Indian are very rich positions from both sides.
I prefer e4 because I enjoy playing against the Sicilian. Open Sicilian positions are extremely rich. Ruy Lopez is my 2nd favourite to the Open Sicilian.
(Like what was said in the video, if you don't enjoy playing against the Sicilian, then you shouldn't be playing e4. Simple as that.)
French is fun as well. I used to play Tarrasch but I decided I should switch to Nc3 and play Winawer and Steinitz. These seem like fun to me.
There are some fun, aggressive lines against the Caro Kann as well. I don't like the main line as much. Panov Attack, Fantasy and Advance Tal are all cool options I think.
Pirc and I'll take the white side of the Austrian Attack any day.
It's better to focus on one of 1.e4/1.d4 for White and a single defense vs 1.e4 & 1.d4 for a minimum of 2-3 years. After that, you can add a second response to 1.e4 & 1.d4 and see how to add more lines as White.
It takes quite a few games in each line to become good at it and spreading out too much won't allow you to do this.
Honestly, focus on openings is overestimated, I know FMs and IMs who play the Scotch ( not the Ruy ), who play the Alapin or a Rossolimo ( not the open sicilian ) and their main response to 1.e4 is the Scandinavian but they have built a lot of experience in these positions and know the subtleties damn well. They used the time they freed from openings study to focus on their calculation and endgame technique, which is superb.
They've pretty much reached the highest possible level for non-professionals, some even have GM norms, they all have jobs and families. They reached 23xx-24xx without a 2700+ opening repertoire, which is nearly impossible to maintain for a non-professional without seconds and without their full time dedicated to chess.
🙃 Fair enough. Well I think they still could have explored some fun and rich openings as well as those skills.
I don't really like the Alapin or Scandinavian. Scotch is good. You know they could play the Scotch against the Sicilian and it's more fun though lol.
I also wouldn't say it takes years of study to play an opening. What I studied of the Najdorf were basically tabia positions and some common mistakes. This didn't take that long at all. It was very casual. I still play it and have fun games and win without having memorised long lines. People exaggerate way too much when they say stuff like there's way too much theory. The people who say this are just parroting someone else's view and never tried or tested it themselves.
In my opinion beginners should not focus on openings, but rather just not giving away material. Even a pawn, if not grabbed back, could become a queen a few tens of moves later. I personally like d5 with black as the first move as it never loses a pawn, it's either a trade if 1.e4 (Scandinavian) or Queen's Pawn, potentially Queen's gambit if 1.d4
many people play for the strategy of playing passively and waiting for their opponent to make a mistake. Likely some of you do this as well, and these people play d4 into the london against anything and just sit there getting easy development and hope black does something weakening to take advantage of it; If not? then you will sit there in a dead drawn rook-pawn endgame
would you rather play this?
or this?
That’s literally how I play otb. I’m 2118. There’s this amazing thing called “strategy” and “positional play” when applied properly creates weaknesses in your opponents position, and the best thing about it is that you don’t have to spend as much time on the position. I have had many opponents in 90min and longer time controls be pushed to <10min while I have at least 4x as much time as them.
And, well, I’m lazy! So being boring is perfectly fine.
thats why you cant get past 2100, yall are too passive but instead of being stupid like lesser levels, you just hang in for a draw
Got to 2100 two tournaments ago. Was 1600 two year ago.
A drawish position does not equate to a drawn game. You simply have to keep the pressure on the opponent.
that could be the case for a 1000, but if you re 2100 you are going to draw. tbh the queens pawn has alot of the most well known drawing openings (queens indian, london, colle, exchange QG, exchange slav, and likely others) while at the same time alot of d4 openings usually dont have many tactics and its more about developing in a peaceful game and breaking on the queenside.
e4 would help beginners by teaching them to find tactics (they are usually alot in e4, unless they play symmetrical openings ) which is great for a lasting chess career to be exposed to many tactics and not just have calmer, boring games; In e4 games can be much more fun as both of you could be attacking eachother in the najorf main line, or trying to tear apart blacks kingside in the open ruy. while its just not some boring, slower, positional game
this?
or this?
this game is slower and its likely will be about who can push the pawns on the queenside the best