question to d4 players!

Assuming everybody has started learning chess with e4-e5, what made you make the switch to the Queen's pawn?

And are you happy with your choice, what advantages have you seen?

I'm an e4 player and, while having spent a ton of time in opening theory against e4 defences, I'm now studying d4. My main goal is simply to learn new things and improve my general understanding of chess. Surely knowing how to play the QGD from white's perspective is going to be more beneficial than memorizing that 15th+ move of a sicilian variation.

I'm using Watson's repertoire book that promises to be strategical and avoiding the lines with monster theory.

My main aspiration would be to have a d4 repertoire that is based on understanding of general positional concepts, rather than pure memorization.

I say this because as an e4 player I'm frustrated by how much theory I have to deal with (and a mistake in the theory can cost you dearly). I've been playing chess only for 1 year and a half: going in a tournament against people who've been playing a line for 20 years (or even more!) I'm at a clear disadvantage.

So, d4 players, how does the theory workload compare with e4?

EDIT: "d4 players" means playing 1.d4 and 2.c4

Colle, London, Veresov etc. are "system players".

I actually switched to the Reti after learning basic opening play with e4. I added d4 to my repertoire initially to be better able to transpose between the two. I've tried c4 but never really liked the positions.

As for why I left e4, I prefer more closed positions with enough pawns on the board to facilitate maneuvers and breaks, and at my level most e4 games tend to lead to clearance in the center. Also, playing 1.Nf3 gives me the edge over opponents unfamiliar with the resulting key positions and themes.

Well as far as I know, e4 games are referred to as the open games (e.g the Open Sicilian, Fried Liver Attack, etc.) and d4 games are referred to as closed games (Like QG). I personally prefer d4 at my level because most people at my rating love relentless tactical attacks on my king, and d4 allows me to enter a much more positional game, fitting my style more. Its all personal preference. I am very happy for my choice, it allows me to control the pace of the game.

As far as I remember, I started playing d4 because all the games at my level in the club went like 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.d3 d6 etc. (with some transpositions) and it was so booooring.

I also was happy to crush players every time they tried to hang to the gambit's pawn after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4. It was the furthest I ever went in "opening traps".

I currently play mostly 1.d4 in competition because I have reasonable sidelines (ie with some play, where I understand the plans and like them) against anything that Black can throw at me, but I am slowly returning to 1.e4 now that I found the Grand Prix against the Sicilian.

What if they don't play them against everything?  Was Capablanca a system player when he played the Colle?

there's no running away from theory. maybe if you like 1 nf3 2 g3 etc you can reasonably minimize it, though being the second player still is a problem.

if you are the type who was afraid of "memorizing that 15th+ move of a sicilian variation"... i guess you are going to play topical enough lines so that you'll have your fair share of theory specially in the slav, king's indian and grunfeld. good luck :D

thanks, that's what I was wondering.

I do know some theory in certain openings already, because I prepared them for black.

I used to play the semi-slav myself and I'm well aware of the mess of the Botvinik variation. Funnily enough it's a position I'd really enjoy playing (especially with black). But as I'm going in tournaments against players who are up to 2000 FIDE and thus well booked up, I'm afraid that it would be like playing against Rybka for the first 20 moves or so.

Nimzo-Indian is now my favourite weapon as black so I don't mind studying it (good value for your time if you study an opening you encounter both as white and as black).

I realized I cannot prepare d4 just with a database, that's why I'm following Watson's book (that emphasizes the fact that his lines are trying to avoid mainstream theory).

For example, for the KID:

5. h3 followed by 6.Be3 OR 6.Bg5 (he gives both alternatives and I can choose, play should be similar).

I can post some of the lines of the book against some other defences, if somebody wants to comment.

Given that 1.d4 is more popular than 1.e4 at GM level, I don't believe that its theory is less than that of 1.e4.

let's see why did I decide to play mainly 1. d4? several reasons.

1. avoids a lot of sicilian theory
2. played more at the GM level than 1. e4
3. d4 has two defenders to the square, the d4 pawn itself and the Queen. e4 has just well, the e4 pawn at the square.
4. positionally and tactically, can be just as dangerous as many 1. e4 lines.

As to theory workload? If you think there is not a lot of theory to the closed pawn games (though granted much of it has been worked out for a couple hundered years now), you likely have not played too many benoni or Benko gambit games and might want to look into the Grunfeld lines. There are exchanging lines, counter gambits and attacks, and in regards to the King's Indian Defense as White, perhaps the Four Pawns Attack is a great line to learn. Theory? Low. White wants 4 pawns on the fourth rank, Bishops on the e file or the 3rd rank, Knights on f3 and c3, castle short and get in e5 since you already have d5. Not really hard at all right? Nope. This is one of the shaprest lines but also one of the most fun too.

The biggest challenge to newer players in 1. d4 lines is when Black plays something other than 1... d5 or 1... Nf6. Some lines have different ideas entirely from regular QP games. c5 enters the Benoni, d6 can be the pirc or a bad KID transposing, e6 the Queen's indian or a Nimzo transposing or QGD transposed as well, f5 is the Dutch and g6 the Modern usually. All have different theory and new players get caught in them and sometimes enough times to give up and play 1. e4 again.

TO be honest, I think my better games have come from 1. d4 than 1. e4 as of late.

If you find your games better after 1.d4 as compared to 1.e4 it means your style calls more for closed strategic play and you should study 1.d4 to improve your chess.

I was in the opposite situation: started with 1.d4 or 1.Nf3 and after 5-6 years of playing chess switched to 1.e4. I found I feel better in open and attacking positions which are more likely to arrive from 1.e4. After choosing 1.e4 I started making much better results with white colour.

I think you can stick to one system when playing 1.d4 much easier than after 1.e4. If you choose London or Colle you can play it regardless of opponent's answer as they are very flexible openings. Given you feel better in closed positions you are entering the right way to achieve better results and improve your play.

Do not be afraid, there are many great systems against the most dangerous openings. For example, if you want to learn how to meet the Grunfeld with white I would suggest to take a look at Karpov-Kasparov matches where Karpov demonstrated great ways to neutralize black's initiative in this opening.