Fischer's First Move

I was reading "Profile of a Prodigy" about Bobby Fischer and I read something that amazed me. Fischer preferred the e4 King's pawn opening fo white. It's not that it's such an amazing move. What I find of interest and amazing is that he could have played many openings and used anyone of those openings on a regular basis. The e4 opening is really more classical chess as opposed to hyper modern (what ever that means - joke - I know the definition, I just cannot stand the term) in it's defense of the central squares. My chess coach is a big fan of it and, while having me try other openings, still prefers this first opening move. Since I am hear to learn, I would be interested in everyone else's opinion on the matter....Hugh

Fischer said that e4 was "best by test" in his book "My 60 Memorable Games."

I'm a Morphy fan, and Paul never used d4 to open with.  If he and Fischer both believed in 1.e4, who am I to say they had it wrong?  I like open games, though I admit they are brutal to play well.  The Sicilian and French are two good lines to play and they come from e4; I admit, I'm hooked.  Once in a great while I'll open with d4 or Nf3 and play with quiet fury, but day in and day out, I play P-K4 and don't apologize for it.  And I also have to admit--I use DN to record my games.  I still don't like AN,. but I have learned to converse in it.

I also have been reading Profile of a Prodigy - mostly the games in the back which are excellent and very instructive.  But here and there I glanced at some of the actual book (which seemed mostly anecdotal in it's focus, not too much about Fischer's chess).  I do remember some discussion about the simplicity of Fischer's style - comparing it to Capablanca's.  Fischer has talked admiringly about Capablanca and said that he immediately understood what Capablanca was doing.  The book says that Fischer's play was almost child-like in it's directness and simplicity, and that he had comprehensive knowledge of the many side variations of the openings he played.  I personally think he liked 1. e4 because it seems to offer more attacking chances than 1. d4 , and maybe gives positions where it is easier to control the direction of the game.

I too enjoy opening with the e4 move. I feel more comfortable with e4 opening when I'm the black player.  it's just that pescey d4 opening that is so annoying! Pew pew on d4. 

THis is honestly just a matter of preferance, You can't compare Kasparov and Karpov as good and bad just because they play 1. d4 or 1. e4.

Interesting. This is what I love about this site. I earn something new every day. Thanks folks, I really appreciate the input. Keep it coming....Hugh

e4 is great but even fischer didnt use it exclusively . He saw the potential in the english as well 

I think Fischer used 1. d4 only once in his career (as a professional, or close to it) and 1. e4 over 600 times to open a game. It becomes a matter of personal preference.

I prefer using 1. d4 right now because I find my opponent playing black can often play themselves into an uncomfortable opening, waste time and become frustrated. I also like the variety of defenses there are for black, leading to many different middlegame themes. And I must admit I'm tired of seeing 1...e5 in defense of e4. I think I've played against e5 over 50 times and the Sicilian three times here.

paul211 knows what he's talking about and if he states it, I take it task!

i prefer the sicilian in response to e4. still kind of new to it, but it seems to be working nicely.

i personally use 1. d4 simply because i find black can play themselves into trouble easily, and some of the middle games it leads to i prefer.

I think e4 may have more theory behind it than d4. It has just been popular for much longer. The Ruy lopez has a tremendous amount of theory, the french has as well, and the sicilian, yeah, that opening is so damn complicated and theory ridden I usually try to avoid it. You also have the giuoco piano and sidelines like evan's gambit which has been analyzed since the days of morphy and there is still theory to suggest it is a sound gambit for white to play. Alekheins defense. The thing I don't like about d4 is it can be difficult to come up with a dynamic position as white if black is playing for a draw, at least in my experience. Unless black plays the King's indian (another amazing opening). I also think that e4 just has more interesting gambits to play around with, the Danish gambit is awesome, the kings gambit is awesome, evan's gambit is awesome, and there are a ton of gambits in the spanish and the sicilian, and some in the french.

Speaking of the Sicilian (Defense), I read recently that Geller employed it against Fischer and Fischer succumbed in 23 moves. Fischer had lost to Geller before, but I don't think he would have gotten away with the Sicilian Defense since Fischer would have noted the 1st loss and tore it apart analytically.