I prefer 1. d4 as white usually has a small but slight edge in most of the lines, and also I think black can equalize in many ways against 1. e4 with dynamic equality
Nameno, what I stated is a fact. Most of his sacrifices are refuted by modern chess theory and analysis.
This is one reason why you'll never be a good player. You are too hung up on the parameters you think theory has over chess. Tal didn't pay a damn bit of attention to it and he became a WCC. Think that over carefully. It doesn't matter what theory is said to be according to computers, if humans can't play that well...
once again, you only show how much of a....____________ (fill in the blank community, I sure you all have your own idea about Yereslov) you are. Get over yourself. You have nothing on anyone here, regardless of what chess theory is. Go look up the meaning of the word theory.
If you go ponder all of this over, I still question your ability to absorb it and use it constructively. Why don't you and actually prove one of here wrong for once....
"feeling like an IM" ? let alone you couldn't beat a 1100
kco, he might mean Imaginary Master.
yeah you seem to be on the right path on that one.
Both of you don't stand a chance against me today. This is one of my "good" days where I play at the level of an IM.
Ahaha hahaaaahaahaha hahahahahahahahahaha aaahahahahaha hahahahaa hahahaha hah hahahahaahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahaahahahaahahahahah. hahahahahahaahahahahaahaha.
Trying to imagine an IM this retarded is killing me.
It's worse: I know an IM & occasionally play him. I have to struggle just to be even material by about move 30, but usually my position is just busted anyhow, even if. But Yereslov would just be demolished right off the bat whether he played e4 or d4.
e4, d4, c4, Nf3, and g3 are equally strong ways to open the game. I like e4, I used to like Nf3. I think that e4 TENDS to be more violent than d4 because of 3 reasons: 1) It's usually easier to open the game without having to sac a pawn, i.e., d4 after e4 is easier than e4 after d4, 2) You can castle quicker, which is usually how one brings rooks into the game, and 3) The Bf1 hits the weak f7 square (and h7). But the first move is only one move. I remember a time when Kasparov's favorite was d4 while Karpov's was e4.
It is noteworthy about the choices of Kasparov and Karpov, considering the styles they were best known for...
Kasparov had an inordinate fear of the Sicilian, IIRC, which may explain his aversion to 1. e4.
I've thought about opening 1. d4... but then I decided that life is too short.
http://chessgames.com/perl/explorer?pid=15940&side=whiteHe didnt exactly avoid e4, he had almost as many games as he did o d4
I play both 1 e4 and 1 d4 ...... why ? I get tired of sicilians ! I play sicilians as black and if I play 1e4 I also face many sicilians. When more than 50% of your games are sicilians the only way to ensure some variety is to play something other than 1e4, OR quit playing the sicilian yourself. Also, I think its good to be able "to hit with both hands" . ( an expression borrowed from boxers )
Agree as variety keeps the game interesting.
I play 1.e4 because I HATE 1. d4 d5, but thats just my opinion.
I think its easier to beat the sicilian than to beat lets say... Queen's gambit semi slav
Yeah which variation?
Why so many threads on this topic recently?
It is the eternal question!
This is a e4 chess site against the few d4 players in reference to the e4 players. So the e4 players are confused when they come across a strong d4 player.
I was just going to say that.
E4 players here mostly! Huh nothing.
When faced against a strong d4 player well nature takes over. This is the only chess site i been where the d4 players were not dominate.
both of them.
AND 1 Nf3... "it depends"?