cleocamy wrote:
d4. I HATE IT... I HATE IT... I HATE IT but I play it anyway. My results with it are far better than e4 so I hold my nose and move the queen's pawn.
You sure about that? (turn-based anyway)
To all 1.d4 players...
Sort:
"You sure about that? (turn-based anyway)"
Yes, I am sure about that. The 60% with e4 is mostly against much weaker players. The 27% losses were mostly against weaker players pulling a fast one.
Winning is only part of my objective in a chess game. Another big part is enjoyable recreation. I don't get much out of a game where my opponent merely memorized someone else's ideas, ideas that I don't see any enduring merit in. Since taking up d4, my games have been more satisfying. Even most of the losses because either I bundered and deserved to lose or his mind beat mine fair and square... no tricks.
roder_toro wrote:
'E4, best by test'
-Bobby Fischer
But e4 isn't Best by Test, according to databases 1.c4 and 1.d4 are more successful, right?
database means nothing
'E4, best by test'
-Bobby Fischer
"e4 vs d4 : more pointless than Bishop vs Knight"
- me
harryz wrote:
plutonia wrote:
Colle and London are lame, yes.
I like to play against the Nimzo and the Grunfeld. They always give an interesting game.
I disagree. The colle and the london are great systems to employ if you want to attack the king, and they are very easy to set up and learn because there is not much theory
If you want to attack the king of somebody who doesn't know how to react. I admit that black has to have a system prepared or it can be dangerous. But if you do have a system, than the game reaches a boring position.
Colle is, after all, a black defence (the semi-slav). Why would you play a black's defence as white?
Or is the semi-slav a white attack? In any case, I believe the middlegame plans are very different.
this discussion is happening on SSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!1, which is a drop in discussion on chess topics
Thing is, to me leastways,that certain systems can't be played vs every defense. I've never played the London system or the Veresov Attack, not because they're 'lame' or passive. If i'm gonna play a line involving Bf4, i'd rather play the QGD: Classical 5. Bf4 straight up. Likewise, in the Veresov, i don't like playing Nc3, locking in the c-pawn. The exception is if it's vs the Dutch.
Anyways, i usually play an Torre, Colle, or Stonewall attack given the opportunity. Rarely play the Tromp or BDG...but i've accumulated lots of theory on them. Some applicable, most just 'fantastic' variations.
Kamsky recently used the London against Aronian. And then Aronian put his knight on h5. I really don't think the situation is as simple as equality.
Billion_Tactics_Boy wrote:
I used to play a very aggresive and tactical variation of the london system myself. I now play e4 but will sometimes still play it. Here it is ( I will usually castle queenside aswell)
So you haven't run into the Budapest, Fajoriwicz, or Englund yet huh?
[COMMENT DELETED]
Torre ,Tromp and most of the "irregular" QP-openings , sometimes a Reti-gambit , a Catalan and recently I'm testing the KIA.
I am a desciple of GM Julian Hodgson (UK) . I just want a playable position to enter the middlegame.
Interesting discussion. As someone who is (I hope) learning I've stuck to 1.e4 consistently, on the basis that ending up in sharper positions is better practice tactically. However, playing long games OTB a lot of my opponents play 1.d4 - London or Veresov, Stonewall etc - perhaps to avoid book openings as other posters have suggested. Personally I don't want to and probably aren't able to memorise huge swathes of book lines, and I have found against higher rated players stuff like the Marshall Attack has left me in trouble when playing 1.e4
harryz wrote:
plutonia wrote:
harryz wrote:
plutonia wrote:
Colle and London are lame, yes.
I like to play against the Nimzo and the Grunfeld. They always give an interesting game.
I disagree. The colle and the london are great systems to employ if you want to attack the king, and they are very easy to set up and learn because there is not much theory
If you want to attack the king of somebody who doesn't know how to react. I admit that black has to have a system prepared or it can be dangerous. But if you do have a system, than the game reaches a boring position.
Colle is, after all, a black defence (the semi-slav). Why would you play a black's defence as white?
Just because the position is not very tacitical doesnt mean its boring. It reaches a positional nature, which is what some players prefer.
I would play the colle because as white, the extra tempo allows me to play e4, which is the main point of the system. In the semi-slav, you get pinned by a bishop on g5; making it harder to push e5 because your bishop must be on e7 to defend the pin or on b4 to counter pin
I do prefer a positional nature.
Just not the Colle. Black can (and should) prevent you to play e4. The first time I played against the Colle they pushed e4 and wrecked me. Then I just learned a really simple system to prevent it (and there's more than one) and white is stuck. Problem is, I don't have much counterplay either so the game becomes really, really boring.
Honestly if all of chess was like the games I have with the Colle I would go play another game.
yucca wrote:
Interesting discussion. As someone who is (I hope) learning I've stuck to 1.e4 consistently, on the basis that ending up in sharper positions is better practice tactically. However, playing long games OTB a lot of my opponents play 1.d4 - London or Veresov, Stonewall etc - perhaps to avoid book openings as other posters have suggested. Personally I don't want to and probably aren't able to memorise huge swathes of book lines, and I have found against higher rated players stuff like the Marshall Attack has left me in trouble when playing 1.e4
Simple-Don't allow the Marshall attack.
harryz wrote:
timepass12345 wrote:
d4 and d4 players suck totally!!
Yeah, so you're saying that 40% of all players suck?
haha!
timepass12345 wrote:
harryz wrote:
timepass12345 wrote:
d4 and d4 players suck totally!!
Yeah, so you're saying that 40% of all players suck?
Yes!!
u probably just called like 3 of ur friends suckers...
jovanu hat geschrieben:
1.e4 is for heros , 1.d4 is for bookworms , avoiding tactics and playin a boring final .
thats why i play 1.d4 d5 and then 2.e4 (the BDG) or 1.d4 Nf6 2.g4 (the GWG)...because iam a lame bookworm, who avoids tactics and prefer to play a boring final...
d4. I HATE IT... I HATE IT... I HATE IT but I play it anyway. My results with it are far better than e4 so I hold my nose and move the queen's pawn.
I'm not much of a book player so I often got rolled up in the opening by some obscure defense that I never had any intention of learning to play against. With e4, unless there is an outright blunder, you can be a chimp and get to the middle game where actual chess starts.
Maybe I'm not good enough yet to be paired against players who know how to pound d4 from move 1, but for the time being, I at least get to deploy my pieces. Using d4 hasn't yet resulted in me having to play anyone's game of dubious but tricky, tricky bullcrap or me having to read a billion chess books to learn to play against the Ihregrossmuttertragtarmeebooten defense to 20 moves.
I must say. I miss a good Spanish or Sicilian, but I can't depend on my opponents playing them anyways.