e4 vs d4

post your thoughts. I prefer d4 since it has less complications and less openings against it, so it is easier to keep the advantage white gets. There are still a lot of sharp positions but compared to e4 i think d4 is easier to play. eg:

whats the sicillian defense called you used in your first vid? do you have good results using that defense I am thinking of using it ..thanks

the sveshnikov (1.e4 c5 nf3 nc6 d4 cxd4 nxd4 nf6 nc3 e5)

good question  if 1 e4 not 1d4 then black has many ways to challenge white then playing d4 if 1 d4 black has less but by no means inaffective ways of preventing  e4 a ine for white to realise this ambition could possibly be flohr mykanos variation of english opening 

The purpose of playing e4 is to control d5 with the potential of occupying it later. I'm only a 1260 so bear with me. If white plays e4 first it gives black oppurtunities to defend in both direct & inderect ways to stop white's advance to d5. If white plays d4 he is only 1 move away from occupying d5. Black must stop this on the next move. This is usually done by black playing d5 himself immediately stoping the advancing white pawn or by playing Nf6 & controling d5 inderectly. When d4 is played first then an eventual e4, the e4 pawns purpose is to pry open d5 to be controlled by white. C4 follows D4 to support the push of d4 to d5. This is why some Grandmaster games start with Nf3 then Nf6 cause until white commits a center pawn Black doesn't know wich way to defend the center & get a fair share of space.

e4 is what a lot of people are more comfortable playing with, but its also what a lot of people are more comfortable playing against

i never liked playing against sicilian and i was bored of playing as sicilian, so i play other openings lol

White's idea in general is to try to get both e4 and d4 in. 

The problem with 1.d4 is that it's very simple to prevent e4 (1...f5, 1...Nf6, 1...d5).  Many of Black's Defenses against 1.d4 are centered around this.  These include the Queen's Gambit Declined, Slav, Nimzo-Indian, Queen's Indian, Stonewall Dutch, etc.  That said, the pawn on d4 is already protected by White's Queen, and so it's very difficult to dislodge it, and so most of Black's defenses, excluding the King's Indian, Benoni, or Grunfeld, is a prevention measure against allowing e4 by White.

The problem with 1.e4 is that the pawn is unprotected.  While 1...c5 and 1...e5 prevent White from maintaining a pawn mass on e4 and d4, it doesn't prevent early d4 pushes by White to open up his position.  Often move 3, in lines like the Sicilian or Scotch Game, see an early d4 played.  Therefore, instead of a prevention measure of avoiding White pawns on d4 and e4, Black has a second option in that instead of preventing d4, he proceeds to directly attack the e4-pawn before White can solidify with two pawns dominating the center.  If Black can force White to advance that e4-pawn to e5, White has weakened his complex.  Instead of pawns on d4 and e4, that control 4 central squares (c5, d5, e5, f5), they are now on say, d4 and e5, which weakens the light squares around them.  For example, if you have pawns on d4 and e5, you have a hole at d5.

The unprotected e-pawn and early advance of both pawns by White forces the position to be more open in nature, and hence tactics and quick attacks come into play.  The "prevention" of pushing the e-pawn to e4 leaves less room for White to manouver his pieces around, and there isn't the early clash in the center, and so pawns don't get traded off, the center remains more closed, and a slower, more positional manouvering game occurs.

So both 1.e4 and 1.d4 have their issues.  Which issues would you rather deal with.  That's the opening you choose.  For myself, I mostly play 1.Nf3, but often transpose to 1.d4 openings.  That said, if d4 and e4 are my only two options, I prefer d4, but many others would play 1.e4.

Don't base your choice of openings on the fact that you find one particular line cool, like maybe, the Four Pawns Attack against the Alekhine.  Assume the worst case scenario in both.  Let's say you hate facing the Sicilian and Grunfeld Defenses.  Which can you deal with better.  If the Sicilian annoys you more than the Grunfeld, and the Sicilian occurs far more frequently, then play 1.d4.

When white plays 1.e4, he always tries to play an eventual d4. If the idea behind e4 is to play d4, why not play it first?

my point is that there are more players who are uncomfortable dealing with d4. when i play e4 i hate to see the sicilian and when i play d4 i am not very annoyed of any opening

I started out a d4 player (Queen's Gambit) and played it for about a decade. You feel like you have slight advantage and good control throughout the entire game. It's also easy to develop your pieces and there's no real disadvantages (speaking about Queen's Gambit). Although I don't have too much time for chess these days, I have finally, in the last 1-2 years, turned to e4 (King's Gambit and Sicilian Closed). I find myself prefering to play sharp rather than (now boring) slow/positional chess and I feel that as both an e4 and d4 player, I have an advantage which ever type of position I find myself in.

i know. the thing is even if you do get in d4 black has multiple ways of nullifying the effects. (shown in lines)

d4 is worse

d4 Nf6 c4 c5 d5 e6 (b5) Nc3

e4 is a Tactical game. If you are no good in Tactics, Try Avoiding the Najdorf, for it is very complicated. If Black plays c5, just play d4, cxd4, and then c3 entering the Smith-Morra Gambit. If e5, White is fine, Nf3, Nc6, and Ruy Lopez or Scotch, White has fine Winning Chances.

e4.

I like e4 played when i am white and e4 played when i am black

Surely it's a matter of taste -- the sort of openings you prefer or are used to playing. Or, if you are comfortable playing both, what would work best against your opponent.

I started playing e4 and still play e4. I'm older now and maybe d4 would fit me better, but I would have a lot to learn to handle the various black defenses. I know very little about the QGD, Slav, and Grunfeld. I know enough about the KID and Nimzo to know that there is much more to know.

@samurai-X

For me it was exactly the other way around :Like ipcress12 , I started off as a 1.e4 player and developped an attacking/tactical style. When I got older (I'm 54 now ), I switched to 1.d4 (1.Nf3) and developped a more positional/strategical style.

The funny thing is that my overall score at my club is nearly the same for both my 1.e4 and 1.d4 games (68%)

In my 1.e4 period I won some nice tactical games , but I also lost a lot of games that lacked the posibility to play any tactics. I was left with a crippled pawn structure : the remains of a misplaced attack.

My main reason to switch to 1.d4 was that I got tired of "sitting on the edge of my chair" after say another Morra- or Scotch gambit. I now enjoy the somewhat slower pace of play after 1.d4 .

I've always admired people that play any opening or defence . People like Larsen (Carlson) , but my greatest hero was GM Julian Hodgson . He made me feel secure in playing so-called offbeat openings , with as little theory about them.  I don't know why , but I've always disliked to really learn the theory : just too lazy . Most of my opponents in my club were pretty good at remembering the theoretical main-lines.

I was the first one to use the Morra+Scotch-gambit as White after 1.e4 and the Wolga-gambit as Black against 1.d4 . Then I bought this damned book about the Trompowsky (1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5!? J.H ) and got hooked on it. I then started playing all kinds of weird stuff (i.e 1.d4 d5 2.Bg5) and things like the Colle and London system. In most of those games my c-pawn landed on c3 , never reaching c4 . I tried to castle Q-side and blast my opponent after a K-side pawn storm. I still play tactics . Even in the 1.d4 lines. Damn you Julian ...

So finaly . I believe both 1.e4 and 1.d4 have their merits . It's basically a matter of taste. My advice would be to play them both , it makes you a richer player and more unpredictable. Depending on your opponent , your mood or the tournament-stands you select one of them.

BS. Top level theory doesn't work in lower levels. Any game under 2000 is a tactical game.

Like most ppl, i started off as an e4 player, mainly because of Bobby Fischer ("Best by test...") and his games. While i strove to play like him (and obviously his opening play too) in those earlier years, while being moderately sucessful, i became rudely aware of the fact (by my more experienced peers kicking my...er..."teaching" me. Heh) to be an complete player, i needed to try other things besides simply emulating the Man. Geez. When they say, " once you go Queenside...", man! (Kidding kidding)

Seriously, though, been an d4 player ever since (with an occasional trip back to stir things up). I found it fit my basic, patient, 'ground n pound', slowly but surely temperament. But that's not to say you can't feed your wild side and go beast-mode in certain lines too. Heh. Like someone commented, either move is fine, just depends on you.

This is a complete trolling line. do not take it seriously.

e4 vs d4 when white is d4

e4 vs d4 when white is e4