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?
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:
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.
Kramnik is right, of course. 1...e5 rules.
However, when he was a youngster, he was one of the greatest authorities on the Dragon (at the age of 15 or so).
And while he doesn't disapprove 1.c4, he usually opens with 1.Nf3 or 1.d4.
LOL. Berlin wall of china?
Hi, Cameron. Personally, even though I no longer play neither of these 'openings', I don't believe 1.e4 is any better than 1.d4; either one of these initial opening moves is to be considered equal by most leading masters today.
However, on a level of preference only, one could say that 1.e4 is 'better' [for him/her] if they prefer or excel in openings [as White] that are most likely to lead towards open positions/games; the same being true for 1.d4, should a particular player prefer openings that are most likely to lean towards closed positions/games.
On the other side of the coin though, 1.d4 [to date] has become a more preferred or modern choice of initial opening moves among leading masters only because it has a reputation of being more solid, as 'that' centralized pawn is consequently already protected by the queen. Any inherent 'downside' to the Queen's Pawn Opening is that one is limiting [or delaying] immediate choices towards kingside development and castling there.
With 1.e4, naturally, the centralized pawn is hanging, albeit, only temporarily. Whether 'that' is going to become a later weakness [or strength, perhaps] or not depends entirely on the precise opening/defence by either player; however, the inherent 'pros' of the King's Pawn Opening immediately open active diagonals for the queen and king's bishop, and consequently 'attack' or influence more squares initially than does the Queen's Pawn Opening, inclusive of accelerating [perhaps preferred] kingside castling.
To sum up then, I really don't believe that any one of the other remaining 18 initial White opening moves are to be seen as being any 'worse-off' [nor better] towards that of inferior/superior initial-move choices [than 1.e4 or 1.d4]. I firmly contend that there's still much more left to gain in opening theory amongst those lesser-known initial moves for both Black and White.
And that's the way 'I' see it! ...
e2 will not be occupied becaus it is in the way of the bishop, and won't really give the queen much scope. f3 will almost certainly be occupied by a knight in 1.e4 openings. g4 and h5 will both be protected by a black knight on f6, that is of course, those squares aren't already blocked by a white knight or bishop. Such a statement that the queen has more scope after 1.e4 is absolutely ludicrous.
D4 is not boring !!! I bet half of us would never be able to see through the complexities of the semi Slav and Slav proper from either side of the board not to mention the Indian defences which set up a battle between whites better center and blacks better pieces . a battle which lasts the entire game ( much longer than any one tactical slugfest) And then there is the Dutch which though little played could be considered the Sicilian of d4 land as there are many decisive results ! Also i would like to point out that the winning percentages in d4 land are slightly higher for white
Really agree! Playing d4 also train beginners to distinguish between positionaly good (or acceptable move) and horrid move. Intermediates benefits form selecting the best one among many non-forcing moves, and appreciate why "mainline" got its status or why some frequently played line in the past suddenly died out what's the merit of the replacement. (See Tarrasch Defense-- For black, losing one tempo or making a soft move before 10th move in mainline causes moderately quick dismay). For advanced players, they can find rich idea of play as both sides has wide choice of plan and perfect their accuracy in fine moves or technical moves.
As for winning percentage, it cannot be a certification of d4 is better. Yet, it shows that white got harder life with 1.e4, in practice.
It's a shame the King's Gambit is avoid at the GM level.
It makes chess so much more exciting.
Too bad Fischer refuted it.
After playing d4 for a while and now learning e4....both are obviously = but i find myself attacking kingside in 1.e4 while d4 i had to manuever and stuff just to break queenside before i got destroyed on the opposite.At this time im enjoying e4 more but if you like playing against the KID and benoni i think d4 is potenitally more lethal
Wrong King's Gambit is seen from time to time at GM level.
From time to time maybe, but that's also the case for the Parham Attack.
both out the window and in with f4 and c4.