pfren wrote:
I also hate the BDG, because nobody plays it against me, and so I'm missing a few easy wins.
I can do you a favor and play it against you, although i will be no match for you, but maybe this saves you the weekend 
1. e4 vs 1. d4
Sort:
bigpoison wrote:
Dark_Falcon wrote:
What a dumb discussion...the Sokolsky- and the Grob-players would say, both moves are really bad...
I prefer 1.d4 because i can play the Blackmar-Diemer-Gambit...
And now? Is anyone enlightened?
I hate the BDG. I've faced the BDG three times in otb tourney play and lost every one.
This variation is particularly insidious, in my opinion: 1.e4 d5 2.d4
Variation???
Its a different move order, BDG via Scandinavian, not more not less...its the starting position of the BDG.
uhohspaghettio wrote:
Yes, I think 1. d4 is better also.
At the amateur level 1. d4 has way better results than 1. e4. At the elite level the results are about the same but this is only because 1. e4 is only played a fraction of the time at the elite level.
Since 1. e4 is a minority opening at the elite level, GMs are less prepared against it than for against 1. d4. Because of this there is surprise value and the majority of a GM's preperation is unused. 1. e4 is still a good opening, but not as good.
1.e4 = a minority opening....???
A daring statement!
pfren wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
Where are you getting this BS?
GM's rarely play the Petroff for that very reason. It's a dull opening.
Excluding world champions Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, Karpov and Kazimzhdanov, super-GM's Gelfand, Ivanchuk, Giri, Gashimov, Wang Yue, Jakovenko, Adams, Shirov, Leko, Mamedyarov...
You are right- almost nobody plays it.
Learn to read. I never said "nobody", I said "rarely."
I like playing against d4, because i like kings indian defense
Sicilian, i love playing against especially dragon/najdorf.
uhohspaghettio wrote:
xAsnl wrote:
pfren wrote:
I also hate the BDG, because nobody plays it against me, and so I'm missing a few easy wins.
I live in an area where a local master lives and dies by the BDG. He teaches his students who then teach the local players and I wouldn't be surprised if 1/4 games in the area are BDG.
I believe the BDG is dubious, but It's still very tricky in blitz. I typically try 1.d4 d5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. e4 de 4.f3 ef 5. Nxf3 c6 planning on ...Bf5 ...e6 ...Bg6 ...Nbd7 ...Qb6 or c7 type stuff. If white plays an early Ne5 and NxB, the open h-file can actually present black with tactics if white isn't careful...
It's not tricky at all in blitz. Play 3. ...Bf5, hang on to the pawn. 4. f3 exf3 5. Qxf3 is easily solved with derp 5. ...Qc8.
If chess would be so easy...6.Bc4 e6 7.g4 and i say white is much better...your turn
uhohspaghettio wrote:
Dark_Falcon wrote:
uhohspaghettio wrote:
xAsnl wrote:
pfren wrote:
I also hate the BDG, because nobody plays it against me, and so I'm missing a few easy wins.
I live in an area where a local master lives and dies by the BDG. He teaches his students who then teach the local players and I wouldn't be surprised if 1/4 games in the area are BDG.
I believe the BDG is dubious, but It's still very tricky in blitz. I typically try 1.d4 d5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. e4 de 4.f3 ef 5. Nxf3 c6 planning on ...Bf5 ...e6 ...Bg6 ...Nbd7 ...Qb6 or c7 type stuff. If white plays an early Ne5 and NxB, the open h-file can actually present black with tactics if white isn't careful...
It's not tricky at all in blitz. Play 3. ...Bf5, hang on to the pawn. 4. f3 exf3 5. Qxf3 is easily solved with derp 5. ...Qc8.
If chess would be so easy...6.Bc4 e6 7.g4 and i say white is much better...your turn
7. ... Bg6.
Now what're you going to do?
d5 can be met with e5. h4 can be met with h6 or maybe even h5.
8.Nge2 and White is much better...
uhohspaghettio wrote:
8. ...Nf6. Boldly prepared to develop the knight on h5 and capitalize on white's weakened king-side if g5 is played next.
9.g5 Sh5 10.Be3 with enough compensation for the pawn...White isnt much better, youre right, but the position is very complicated...
nqi wrote:
I am a fan of 1d4, simply because it is Sicilian-proof. I never like going into the second move of a game with the feeling my opponent knows what the next twenty moves are going to be
This precisely why I don't prefer either one. I think both of these openings are played so much that the moves are so obvious, many experienced players don't have to think half as much as I would need to.
1.d4 is about as studied as 1.e4.
And so has this:
There is nothing new under the sun.
If you want to avoid opening theory just play something like this:
I didn't make the notes. They are made by Anthony Miles and edited by Raymond Keene.
uhohspaghettio wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
If you want to avoid opening theory just play something like this:
Comically wrong again Yereslov. If you want to play the St. George's against any remotely competent player you have to know 15+ moves of theory in numerous directions to get the level game or murky position black is aiming for.
The St. George is a known handicap, there is literally no independant reason for playing it whatsoever (unlike say the Bassman 1. ...g5).
I believe that every player should try his best at all times. Because of this I find the St. George distasteful.
I guess you know more than Anthony Miles and Karpov, right?
AnthonyCG wrote:
Why does everyone leave out the part where Karpov missed the forced win on move 19?
I'm all for crazy ideas but let's see some objectivity here.
A forced win on move 19?
I didn't really bother checking the game.
AnthonyCG wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
AnthonyCG wrote:
Why does everyone leave out the part where Karpov missed the forced win on move 19?
I'm all for crazy ideas but let's see some objectivity here.
A forced win on move 19?
I didn't really bother checking the game.
Karpov pointed it out himself after the game. So while the idea worked out it was still a risky thing to do.
At move 19 it did look like it was over.
Karpov should have been able to execute mate.
It's a deserved loss on his part then.
Depends on the type of player u are..personally i love e4 and there is a little story about it,
i happen to be a tactical player and have played e4 right through my life..however i had to stop playing chess to finish my education and then to continue with my job as a software engineer, i was out of touch of chess for a very long time and coming back to chess was difffcult, so i started playing d4...which gives me kind of closed positions, the results were bad and i drew most of my games and if black was prepared well the games ended up with me on the losing side.....i was stuck with a fide rating of 1672...finally i decided to quit my job and pursue my mba....i found some time to dedicate my chess during my mba (which im still doin) during this time i started being active on chess.com and played a hell lot of blitz, where i experimented with e4 without the fear of loss,
i started getting back my tactical vision back and my game improved once again.....during my term break in april i played one of the tournaments held in bangalore ,india and this was my first tournament in 3.5 years...the result was striking, my fide ratings increased by 124 points to 1796 in 8 rated games....and my performance rating was 2065...
i always beleive if ur a sum1 who loves tactical battle and romantic chess should play e4 and those who like the sound positional chess should focus more on d4.....both openings are equally good but it depends on who uses it...
below is my fide profile:
http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=5098190
badonders wrote:
Personally, I prefer 1.d4. That's since I started playing chess 25 years ago. I rarely open with 1.e4. I planned to do, but I want to study the openings much more, especially the Sicilian. Just like nqi, i don't want to play the Sicilian with white due to lack of knowledge about it.
When I get e4 against me playing black, I usually play Caro Kann.
Exactly the same as me!
I play c4 d4 and e4 there is lots of relations ships between various opening like centre game and pirc what i think is more important is the midlle game manipulation for and eng game plan
I consider d4 and e4 to be slightly superior to c4 because c4 does not allow a bishop to move out and places a pawn slightly off-center. D4 and e4 are practically equivalent, but since e4 also allows the queen more room, I am inclined to say e4 is superior to d4.
e4 tends to lead to open games that means drawish at high level if a gm lets say 2500 wants to draw a gm 2550 he will go on e4 looking for some dull middle game like in petrof or scotch, then again if a gm 2500 is playing a weaker player lets say 2200 he will also go e4 simply because weaker tends to mean lack of good tactics and opening knowledge, that will be deadly in an open game. 1 d4 tends to go into a more positional game type and is hallenging black to go on some not completely sound game plans like in kings indian when attacking/developing kingside neglecting the queenside completely, or to get into the benko gambit. Most of the cases white will end up playing QG (queens gambit) lines accepted or declined, or the slav defence, wich at least will guarantee white some more space to maneuver and development but it will be a slow maneuvering game if well played obviously
For not so good level lets say 2200 below I must say just play what you like no one really knows that much theorie, probably most of your opponents won't even follow the basic opening rules
Where are you getting this BS?
GM's rarely play the Petroff for that very reason. It's a dull opening.