I love to play the queen's gambit. I think the colle and london system arent near as exciting. I don't mind playing e4. I love the ruy and the scotch, but nothing is quite as fun as 1. d4 .... 2. c4.
It's not that I want to hide behind d4. I've actually been playing only e4 for awhile, but d4 is just a more fun game. I love the old GMs like rubinstein and capablanca. (mainly rubinstein, his endgame videos on this site are freaking amazing). I just want to know when I have accomplished whatever Im supposed to be learning from 1. e4 before going back to QG.
Again, just ditto with this. My feelings exactly. It's also a little strange to be told play e4 and to go through old master games, starting with the likes of Capablanca who inevitably play d4 most of the time.
Not by much though...he played 1.e4 177 times and 1.d4 221 times.
Ah, so you are crossing over to the dark side?
Good luck. You will need it.
Yes maybe, generally though d4 was more popular if you are talking about old master games - or it seems so in the collections and books I have been going through.
I think it's fairly even.
Lasker: 503 e4 107 d4
Morphy: 181 e4 0 d4
Keres: 655 e4 267 d4
Nimzowitsch: 125 e4 37 d4
Steinitz: 348 e4 60 d4
Alekhine: 580 e4 575 d4 (coin flip)
Lots of other d4 players as well(Euwe, Botvinnik, Petrosian, Rubinstein, etc). Just depends what masters you are looking at I guess.
I like to play 1. d4. i fhte other person does king's indian defence, I do the stonewall, and with d5 I do the queen's gambit. I play on a highschool chess team, so my opponents are unfamiliar with those openings and I feel that their unfamiliarity gives me an edge when playing.