When did 1400 USCF equal a strong class B player?
If you've looked at my tournament history and not just rating, I haven't entered a tournament in the last three months.. My coach thinks I'm at the upper end of class B level. The thing is though, I'm not entering any rated events because I'm doing a "breakout tournament" strategy. So my USCF is not an accurate representation at the moment.
The thing that I'm asking though is if it's worth using at all under 2000 level. I'm a strong class B USCF player, but I still can't see why anyone at my level uses d4 over e4 as the advantages given by d4 are small enough that they don't make much of a difference, as opposed to 1. e4 which leads to extremely sharp games that generally emerge with a clear advantage for either side.
Players under 2000 USCF cannot beat a well prepared 1700 that plays the French. Above 2400, the French is less fearsome. Players under 2000 should avoid 1.e4.
id say using 1.d4 is pretty good based on the fact that almost all strong GMs these days (as did kasparov also) are opening with it. who cares what fischer said, that is just a phrase, but he also said a lot of dumb things didnt he! to say it is pointless to play 1.d4 at a certain level means such a player accepts that is his level and will never go beyond that level, maybe that is the reason why you should play it. everyone knows 1.e4, for white and black, it gets so boring after a few years. there is more than one way to skin a cat and those players who think open, aggressive chess is somehow superior are deluded. the object is to win, whether that is by mate in 20 or by promoting a pawn on move 70 makes no difference.
The thing that I'm asking though is if it's worth using at all under 2000 level. I'm a strong class B USCF player, but I still can't see why anyone at my level uses d4 over e4 as the advantages given by d4 are small enough that they don't make much of a difference, as opposed to 1. e4 which leads to extremely sharp games that generally emerge with a clear advantage for either side.
Players under 2000 USCF cannot beat a well prepared 1700 that plays the French. Above 2400, the French is less fearsome. Players under 2000 should avoid 1.e4.
Maybe you can extend this further:
Some of the weaker players at my club (1200'ish) play 1. d4 followed by 2. e3 and then always completely block everything. Strong players will find a way in naturally, but this way the weak players are less likely to blunder, so it might work well for them.
Furthermore, I don't know what kind of traumatic experience Ziryab has had with the French, but it must have been bad.
The thing that I'm asking though is if it's worth using at all under 2000 level. I'm a strong class B USCF player, but I still can't see why anyone at my level uses d4 over e4 as the advantages given by d4 are small enough that they don't make much of a difference, as opposed to 1. e4 which leads to extremely sharp games that generally emerge with a clear advantage for either side.
Players under 2000 USCF cannot beat a well prepared 1700 that plays the French. Above 2400, the French is less fearsome. Players under 2000 should avoid 1.e4.
That is a hell of a statement, Ziryab. You find the French to be that fearsome? Not that I'm saying it is not when someone is "well prepared", but are you implying White is at a disadvatage even if they are two, or three hundred points higher than the "well prepared" French player?
Ziryab's analysis of the French:
the french is hardly fearsome, as steinitz said 'i have never once played the french in all my life, it is the most boring of all openings'...and i agree. if it really was so tough why is the sicilian played far more at GM level than the french? as soon as i see that little timid 1...e6 i lick my lips. it is an overly defensive move on move one...jeez, scary.
Ziryab's analysis of the French:
That was hilarious, averagepatzer
Ziryab's analysis of the French:
That was hilarious, averagepatzer
Yes it is. :)
But on the topic of d4, I myself play d4, and often my games are very tactical. I play the Torre Attack a lot, and I often get good attacking positions. I think there are more tactical openings in e4, yes, but I don't think it makes d4 flawed. Play what you're comfortable with.
The french is also favored by very young players who intend to play e5, but after picking up the e pawn realize that their arms are too short to reach. But with a little more gravity, I disagree with what djbl said about the french being weak or boring, it's a respectable and strong opening.
the french is hardly fearsome, as steinitz said 'i have never once played the french in all my life, it is the most boring of all openings'...and i agree. if it really was so tough why is the sicilian played far more at GM level than the french? as soon as i see that little timid 1...e6 i lick my lips. it is an overly defensive move on move one...jeez, scary.
Actually the French is considered along with the Sicilian to be one of the most dynamic responses.
well im with steinitz thanks. and if you call a blocked pawn center and a feeble attack on d4 dynamic, yeah,. its real dynamic. the french is a closed opening, how then do you call that dynamic??
well im with steinitz thanks. and if you call a blocked pawn center and a feeble attack on d4 dynamic, yeah,. its real dynamic. the french is a closed opening, how then do you call that dynamic??
Good for you. However I'll go with almost all modern players instead of someone from 100 years ago thanks. It's obvious you haven't actually looked at any French analysis or seen any modern French games.
There is nothing wrong with the french defense. It may not suit some people and they shouldnt play it if it doesnt. I have been playing both the french and various sicilians for years and still play them both. Acording to my database the french scores 46% and thats not bad. Its better than 1...e5 and 1...d6 scores and the same as 1...c6 , so its a real alternative.
The reason I believe that 1d4 is superior is that when black plays c5 white usually has the option of going d5 at some point. The (open)Sicilian prevents white from obtaining a central pawn majority.
Statistically the Siclian stops 1e4 from being better than 1d4.
Consider the basic Maroczy bind position with an analogous Kings Indian (Say Samisch variation), where white has a pawn on d5 and black has either a pawn on c5 or traded on d5 to open up the c file for white. From white's perpective I prefer the d5 "bone down the throat"
For similar reason I believe 1c4 is inferior to 1d4 because black can also play c5 and disallow white from playing in space grabbing mode with d5 at some point.
I don't know what kind of traumatic experience Ziryab has had with the French, but it must have been bad.
The horror. The horror.
I used to play 1.e4, then I played a bunch of casual games against Al French. White lost all his advantage. That was many years ago when I was just beginning to return to chess after a decade long hiatus.
Many years later I took up the French Defense and it propelled me from 1400s USCF to 1800s USCF (and still climbing).
My analysis is slightly different than what's been reported here.
1.e4?! e6!
Statistically the Siclian stops 1e4 from being better than 1d4.
Indeed. Despite Fischer's claim, which he uttered without benefit of databases, 1.d4 is best by test. Moreover, when Fischer needed to win a world championship, he switched to queen's pawn openings, albeit by transposition from 1.c4.
Just use whichever you want. At a 1400 level, or an 1800 level, or a 2200 level, the better player will usually win.
You should open with whatever you're comfortable with. If you get lucky and your opponent is not comfortable with that game you might get a competitive advantage.
I don't think there's a reason to choose 1.e4 or 1.d4 as better or worse. They're both fine.
Fischer said 1.e4 is "best by test". But Kasparov said that all the top players are playing 1.d4 because 1.e4 and you get yawn another draw.