It's confused. 1 d4 is better.
1. e4 vs 1. d4
Sort:
This settles it. They are equal but Nf3 is best at depth 31.
Agree that e4 is generally better for weaker players (positionally weaker) There are plenty of positional lines with e4 but they are easier avoided.
d4 has much more chance of transpositions and subtler play that benefits more from a higher understanding. Same with the English opening
ironbasicb wrote:
the noncommittal 1.Nf3
I like this opening. I allows black to dictate the center and then white counters with opposing pawn move or another developing knight move. It works.
LouStule wrote:
ironbasicb wrote:
the noncommittal 1.Nf3
I like this opening. I allows black to dictate the center and then white counters with opposing pawn move or another developing knight move. It works.
Indeed, you control the centre with pieces and then add a bit more control by preparing moves like e4. It's a nice opening but positionally complex. Many GM's also use it mainly because it's flexible but my favourite of the 1.Nf3 openings is a straight up KIA. A lot of fun to play.
We all have our unique reasons for choosing the openings we regularly play. I hate playing against the Sicilian. I have tried the main lines (black has Scheveningen, Dragon, Najdorf, Kan, Sveshnikov amongst others), 2. c3, the King's Indian attack, 2. f4, the wing gambit, the Morra gambit (sorry Ken Smith), the Rossolimo and found that in all of them Black has ways to create positions where I felt uncomfortable, even if objectively they were playable.
So I am forced to play something else. 1. Nf3 is too much work, because of all the possibilities for transposition and rarer moves like 1. Nc3, 1. b3, 1. f4 etc. do not appeal, so I am forced to open with either 1. d4 or 1. c4, and fortunately none of Black's tries against those bothers me as much as the Sicilian.
tob1a5 wrote:
Smith Mora is the answer. Black doesn't get much in any of the variations regardless of what you've heard, perhaps you're just playing it incorrectly.
That is not the problem. I just don't like the positions White gets in any kind of Sicilian. I want to enjoy my chess. I don't want to sit there for hours playing positions that I don't like, when I could be enjoying myself in a 1. d4 game (or doing something completely different).
As for the Morra gambit (why does Smith get to add his name) I think it is just bad. Or rather, it is only good for a draw. If I was still playing 1. e4 it would not be my choice against 1. ... c5.
ModestAndPolite wrote:
tob1a5 wrote:
Smith Mora is the answer. Black doesn't get much in any of the variations regardless of what you've heard, perhaps you're just playing it incorrectly.
That is not the problem. I just don't like the positions White gets in any kind of Sicilian. I want to enjoy my chess. I don't want to sit there for hours playing positions that I don't like, when I could be enjoying myself in a 1. d4 game (or doing something completely different).
As for the Morra gambit (why does Smith get to add his name) I think it is just bad. Or rather, it is only good for a draw. If I was still playing 1. e4 it would not be my choice against 1. ... c5.>>>
That's right, the position is about equal. Three tempi in the opening is worth a pawn and white gets two and a half tempi for it. It only works against blunderpusses.
E4. The Sicilian is not bad, you can either transpose or just play the Rauzer System
I vote e4. Most d4 games end up slow, boring, and quiet.
both are equally good in their own ways
I vote e4 because its more fun
On explorer there are 879354 e4 games to 692967 d4 games. There are 186387 more e4 games than d4 games
aadaam wrote:
For rubbishy amateur players like myself 1.d4 has a tendency to produce tame, boring games; bits develop onto better squares, bits get swapped off with no harm done, nothing happens. 1.e4 gives you more chance of an exciting game; you're drawn into a 'situation' which only one player will survive.>>>
And that's the very reason why 1. d4 is superior for people who understand some of the ideas and who are prepared to put some work into improving that understanding, because, as you admit, you don't understand how to produce tension in QP games. One only has to walk into a chess congress and eavesdrop at random, to hear conversations along the lines of "I've no idea how to play QP games against well-prepared players and I just hack it and hope for the best". It even exists in Major tournaments, although hopefully not in Opens.
both suck . . . same boring, predictable crap everyone else already fully knows. 1. g4!!
Both moves are refuted now. You should look for something different.
Looks like mckn3hd's account has been refuted.
both are best moves!
Stockfish prefers e4 when it analyzes for the first minute; it then switches to d4 for the next three hours, and then back to e4 for the next day.