Some will disagree with that advice, but it seems to follow the development of chess strategy in your own personal development. Once you've become good with middlegame play and even endgames, you can branch out into other opening strategies and follow a path more to your own liking. But you may just want to stay with the King-pawn games.
Should 1.e4 and 1...e5 be the start of all our careers?
Sort:
I have nothing against this advise. i truley believe it but i have been told a bunch of counter arguments.
1. In order for a chess player to get better he needs to understand who he is. Positional or tactical. play to your strengths. Im not saying all 1.d4 lines are positional and that all 1.e4 lines are tactical but there is a clear concensus which will lead to which usually.
2. 1.e4 is some what sharper simply because the Ruy Lopez(with the marshall and schliemann), sicilian (EVERY VARIATION), and even kind of the french because if you dont protect your center your a goner.
If only Bobby Fischer was here with us today :/
chessteenager wrote:
I have nothing against this advise. i truley believe it but i have been told a bunch of counter arguments.
1. In order for a chess player to get better he needs to understand who he is. Positional or tactical. play to your strengths. Im not saying all 1.d4 lines are positional and that all 1.e4 lines are tactical but there is a clear concensus which will lead to which usually.
2. 1.e4 is some what sharper simply because the Ruy Lopez(with the marshall and schliemann), sicilian (EVERY VARIATION), and even kind of the french because if you dont protect your center your a goner.
If only Bobby Fischer was here with us today :/
Ruy lopez is not sharper if it goes through any main line, marshall and schliemann excepted. Also, french and sicilian are not as sharp as many d4 lines.
Here is just how sharp the semi-slav is.
And here's the modern benoni.
The normal slav.
The grunfeld:
The KID:
Meanwhile, just look at the e4 variations that are so called "sharp". I play najdorf, and the only sharp line that I really can get into is the Bg5 line (maybe the sozin?), as I simply avoid the english attack with Ng4. Most of my najdorf games are actually more positional, fighting for the d5 square and those ideas. Also, the ruy lopez is relatively positional, if it was sharp in the opening white wouldn't have time to play Nf1-g3 and black wouldn't play the Breyer with Nb8, only black can make the ruy lopez sharp (with marshall or schliemann), while white gets the choice in most QP lines.
Well thats wha ti was saying? Black can EASILY sharpen up the positions which is danger for novice 1.e4 players
Schliemann.
Traxler
Botvinik Caro kann
French is sharp
and to sit here and say that sicilians dont get sharp is controversal to the max.
Dragon gets extremely sharp with pawn storms
The h6 i believe argentianian variation is sharp as can be
To my knowledge 1.e4 e5 and 1.d4 d5 are recommended responses from black because the strategic themes found are somewhat foundational to all sorts of positions, maybe even the game itself. Other lines can be chaotic or full of exceptions to standard strategic rules. Not just sharp positions, but also quiet ones where long term plans and timing are important... so it's not really a question of sharp or quiet.
With 1.e4 e5 you'll usually get at least 1 open center file (or half open) where regular things are important like center control, tempo, development, piece activity. Not that these are unimportant in other openings, but for example in closed games you losing a tempo or 3 may not matter, in hypermodern openings you willingly give up the center, in others your first 5 of 8 moves my be pawn moves, or developing a knight to the edge, or not castling.
And once you get a feel for the fundamental interaction of the pieces, learning from experience why what works really does work, you can move on to discovering the exceptions e.g. when very reasonable ideas like a rook is better than a knight can be reversed.
IMO this is also why endgames are ideally studied first. The student is impressed with the idea that you need to use every piece to its fullest and they need to work together and how they actually work together. They student also sees how one side is lost before the material balance is broken. The student probably wont be aware of it, but they're getting to see the nature of the game itself. With all the pieces (or chaotic openings) things aren't so clear.
I was saying that white cannot chose to play a sharp variation with 1. e4, but rather black gets to decide. Most people play 1. e4 because it is sharp, but many of the positions they reach actually are quite quiet.
1.e4 e5 is played from beginners to masters. It is a fun way to start the game and I encourage you to stick with it if it works for you.
And I'm saying that this clear consensus of which is which is really dumb beginners who think that e4 is tactical and d4 is positional.
Yeah I agree with Wafflemaster.
When you try to play the Ruy Lopez with Black and then go to Alekhine's defence it's like there's a whole new set of rules that you have to know that have more to do with the opening itself rather than middlegame theory.
I noticed a similar thing when comparing 1.d4 d5 openings like the queen's gambit declined to Indian defences like the benoni.
I wasn't trying to counter what anyone else said before. Just giving my idea on the subject. I agree that that 1.e4 and 1.d4 both contain very sharp and very quiet lines.
Feb 9, 2013
0
#13
shepi13 - while I agree in essence with your post, you should know that you can't actually avoid the English Attack by planning Ng4. White can play both 6.f3 and 6.Be3 Ng4 7.Bc1 followed by f3 and Be3 transposing to the English Attack.
f3 Qb6 - haven't ever lost in this line - partly because nobody is ever prepared against it. I have faced some of the weirdest moves in this line:
"The unpoisoned pawn" - f3 Qb6 Be3 Qxb2 Bd2 Qb6 Be3 (my opponent tries to convince me to repeat 
)
"I shall defend" - f3 Qb6 Rb1
"You win - I'll just play sozin then" - Bc4 Nc6 Nb3 (which is quite akward, but Nxc6 doesn't seem much better).
"I'll just play my english without the bishop" - g4!? (one of the actual lines).
Nb3 - the main line, is only rarely played, and I have played players all the way up to 2000 with this opening.
I felt that way when going into some of the trompowsky lines in club games. I'd memorize some lines for next week and get weirder and weirder positions. The computer would say "you're doing great" but I'd be totally confused. So I gave up and started played 2...d5 or 2...e6 heh.
Great answer wafflemaster.
Another reasoning i always had was, there comes a time in most games where one person has the bishop pair or a bishop Vs Knight which is very common. He is reccomended to open the position. Since most game's positions eventually do open up what better way to practise then the open games?
Feb 9, 2013
0
#18
I never seriously played e5 against e4 in my chess career. I started with sicilian dragon and then went to french when I was a beginner. I think if you feel like e5 won't be fun against e4 then there is no point forcing yourself to learn it. Play what's fun for you, but also make sure it is sound.
redchessman wrote:
I never seriously played e5 against e4 in my chess career. I started with sicilian dragon and then went to french when I was a beginner. I think if you feel like e5 won't be fun against e4 then there is no point forcing yourself to learn it. Play what's fun for you, but also make sure it is sound.
You are a very interesting case. I really appreciate your insight. May i ask? Did you ever have problems with the sicilian dragon? i mean it is a boat of theory and practically goes against opening development rules. I dont really see many begginers beating me with it. So you think there is no need to learn the open games first? You area very strong player your insight is hepful.
A great player on this site...probably one of the best, has given me the advise to start with 1.e4 and 1...e5. I was around a 1500 on standard live chess (15 minute chess) and a 1261 on OTB chess. Ive known how to play since the age of four but got serious about a year ago. My live chess from last year on a different account (15 minute) went from 1120 to 1585 as a max out in one year(on another account) with 1.d4 and caro kann.
I have taken my friends advise for the past couple months now and exculesevly played 1.e4 and 1...e5 in response to 1.e4. I greatly respect him. His reasoning is that we should all start with the basic pawn structures and really understand the open games before we have a right ot move onto semi or closed games. Its just like math we start with pre algebra before stepping into 3d quadratics.
I just want to know do we all agree with this? should begginers like me all start with 1.e4 and 1...e5? They are clearly great openings. Is this a clean concensus around the chess world?
*this is curiosity for the most part, i really respect the advise of my friend and am becoming comfortable with 1.e4 and 1...e5