Should I learn e4?

It’s worth studying 1.e4 a bit, even if you stay a 1.d4 player, because it helps you understand open positions and common attacking ideas, which will make you a stronger and more well-rounded chess player overall and knowing more openings. IMO Ruy Lopez, Italian, or Vienna.

It all depends on what your chess objectives are. If you are seeking to deepen your understanding of the game, becoming "ambidextrous" will help. If you play in a context in which opponent's have time in advance in which to research your openings and Prepare Something, keeping them guessing will help. But on the other hand learning 1. e4 or indeed 1. d4 openings from scratch is a shedload of work. With 1. e4 you need at the very least something against 1..., e5 and the French and the Sicilian and the Caro-Kann and the Pirc-Modern complex and the Scandinavian and irregulars. And each is its own separate area for study. How much time do you have? Is it best spent on new openings and new position-types or on middlegame strategy and tactics and endgames? It all depends on Who You Are. There is no "one size fits all" good answer here.

It is recommended to study chess following the way it was historically played. I t means that everyone should study 1.e4 e5 openings first. If you are 1900 you are definitely a decent player but studying famous historical games opened by 1.e4 e5 will definitely enrich your chess knowledge.

Im the opposite, cinsidering if d4 is worth exploring. Always played e4

*considering

hola

que pasa

Play f4. Be brave.

In recent years I play 1. E4 2. Nf3 then 3 is either Ruy or Italian depending on black's response. But if they come with Scandinavian or other it can change move 2.

You have to play E4 as white if you want to learn to defend e4 as black.

Most e4 openings aim for f7, being very vulnerable for black. Getting LSB to a2 is always a good idea.

@wonkercc In that case my answer is, "yes". Finding good lines in the Open Sicilian will teach you a lot (I was too lazy and still play "closed", I don't recommend it for overall development of understanding). The Caro-Kann Fantasy Variation and French 3. Nc3 will give you a lot of new tactics and strategy to think about. And with 1. e4, e5 to get outside a d-Pawn player's comfort zone John Shaw's book on the King's Gambit is a joy. Or if you prefer serious strategic learning go for the Ruy Lopez (but remember Black has weird tries like the Latvian).

It was once said here, if you play Gucci Piano (Italian for soft), grow a pair and play the Spanish (Ruy Lopez). I don't know about that but beneficial to practice both.

im so opposite ive played e4 my whole life and never studied d4. everytime someone plays d4 i just play e5 which is a horrible move but i do not know any slav defense theory and that

@jskxjckrkw the Englund really won't help you improve. Aside from the case of a few brave, sharp, talented, and excessively well-prepared souls like @jcidus who Really Understand It to the sort of level which a first-class past tactical Master like Diemer could only dream of, it is a recipe for either trappy win (no learning there) or long defence of a Poor Position. I too struggle with defences to 1. d4. If you like odd stuff, my recommendation would be to have a look at 1..., b5. Basman and Welling's "U Cannot Be Serious" is a key source. That's not my own solution to the 1. d4 problem, but my own solution is one which I know will only work for my own turn of mind and is not good for general recommendation.

Yeps, that's actually pretty good opening

yes