It really isn't a matter of which is "better". It's a matter of what kind of game you like to play. What is medicine to one man is poison to another. E4 favors tactics, d4 positional play though that's just a generality. I was a d4 player all my life until recently and when I switched to E4, strangely, I won my first tournament beating a GM, IM and becoming a master. Why? Because I've always been a tactical player. Cyrus Lakdawala once said to me "you're like an e4 player trapped in a d4 player's body", so I switched and it worked. But I could imagine just the opposite happening.
Is d4 better than e4
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
mashanator wrote:
noleryer wrote:
Cuz people are too dumb to realize Fischer proved e4 was best by test.
If Fischer was say, Polish, then your hard-on for him would be far smaller.
Too true.
divingscence wrote:
mashanator wrote:
If Fischer was say, Polish, then your hard-on for him would be far smaller.
[ btw Polish isn't a bad opening and don't drag it to here.]
He didn't, he wasn't talking about the Polish opening.
Scottrf wrote:
If Fischer was say, Polish, then your hard-on for him would be far smaller.
[ btw Polish isn't a bad opening and don't drag it to here.]
He didn't, he wasn't talking about the Polish opening.
He did mention it & it was in a degrading manner.
divingscence wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
If Fischer was say, Polish, then your hard-on for him would be far smaller.
[ btw Polish isn't a bad opening and don't drag it to here.]
He didn't, he wasn't talking about the Polish opening.
He did mention it & it was in a degrading manner.
No he didn't.
divingscence wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
If Fischer was say, Polish, then your hard-on for him would be far smaller.
[ btw Polish isn't a bad opening and don't drag it to here.]
He didn't, he wasn't talking about the Polish opening.
He did mention it & it was in a degrading manner.
Read it again.
AssauIt wrote:
divingscence wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
If Fischer was say, Polish, then your hard-on for him would be far smaller.
[ btw Polish isn't a bad opening and don't drag it to here.]
He didn't, he wasn't talking about the Polish opening.
He did mention it & it was in a degrading manner.
Read it again.
okay 
i get it.
The Polish is pretty awful though.
Darkbluelord wrote:
It really isn't a matter of which is "better". It's a matter of what kind of game you like to play. What is medicine to one man is poison to another. E4 favors tactics, d4 positional play though that's just a generality. I was a d4 player all my life until recently and when I switched to E4, strangely, I won my first tournament beating a GM, IM and becoming a master. Why? Because I've always been a tactical player. Cyrus Lakdawala once said to me "you're like an e4 player trapped in a d4 player's body", so I switched and it worked. But I could imagine just the opposite happening.
When I tried broadening my horizon with 1.d4, c4 or Nf3, I suddenly started to draw most of my games as white, so I switched back to 1.e4, as I'd learned no positional play or strategy.
e4 is better but only becus it is highly analysed so people prefer d4 why not open lines of both queen and bishop than to open bishop alone??
kbhasker wrote:
e4 is better but only becus it is highly analysed so people prefer d4 why not open lines of both queen and bishop than to open bishop alone??
lol
Scottrf wrote:
The Polish is pretty awful though.
now it's been degraded.
Senator-Blutarsky wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
The Polish is pretty awful though.
now it's been degraded.
And you are just standing there seeing your favorite opening getting degraded!!?
wOw..
I'm sitting down. Besides, 1.e4 is my favourite.
Senator-Blutarsky wrote:
I'm sitting down.
Yep, you are. And he is standing tall.
Senator-Blutarsky wrote:
I'm sitting down.
And btw, get a chair or something!
Cuz people are too dumb to realize Fischer proved e4 was best by test.
I like Fischer chess. But, I won't play like him. I imagine he is the best player. But I don't care what he said.
He could play his chess, I play mine.