Why d4 is better than e4 improved edition

You can lose against anyone with anything. It's not your first move that loses the game.

For what it's worth: Fischer did proclaim 1 e4 as "best by test".

And just so I get it straight: is the OP claiming that 1 e4 is worse than 1 d4 because of the Sicilian? Because fearing the Sicilian is probably more irrational than my fear of the Samsich KID. And talking about the KID, I think it would be more correct to describe it as "unbalanced" than "unsound". Nailbitingly terrifying to play as either colour (I both love and hate the fire and brimstone of the middlegame struggle), but definitely not unsound.

Do you know this to be true? Of recorded games in 1915, 79 were played with the Ruy Lopez and 28 with the Italian Game.

For what it's worth, here is one explanation for why the Ruy may be preferred over the Italian (i.e., it is potentially a tempo faster):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hriSNXPkIA

Nah mate 1. f3 is better than both 1. d4 and 1. e4 because if you play 1. d4 you might end up with 1. d4 c5 2. e4 d6 3. Nf3 and you have a Sicilian which means 1. d4 is bad for White.

same

Mannheim 1914 games

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5: Duras-Alekhine, John-Tarrasch, Flamberg-Marshall, Duras-Flamberg, Kruger-Bogoljubow, Post-Alekhine, Fahrni-Spielmann, Tarrasch-Duras, John-Reti, Tarrasch-Post, Breyer-Tarrasch, Fahrni-Post, Flamberg-Alekhine, Reti-Duras, Tarrasch-Bogoljubow, Flamberg-Tarrasch

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4: Alekhine-Breyer, Mieses-Marshall, Kruger-Tarrasch, Mieses-Kruger, Alekhine-Tarrasch, Kruger-Reti, Mieses-Alekhine, Tartakower-Kruger

Arawn_of_Annuvin wrote:

"... To be clear: do you believe that after the moves 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 that 3.Bb5, 3.Bc4, and 3.Nc3 are all of equal strength?

Furthermore, do you believe that the reason that 3.Bb5 is chosen at the gradmaster level far more often than 3.Bc4 is because grandmasters feel more comfortable in the Spanish rather than the Italian?"

Fiveofswords wrote:

"yes. furthermore some gms like the italian. and they play it. and do fine. you can speculate all you want about why most grandmasters seem to like the ruy."

"i think its amusing that if you posed the same question 100 years ago it would be the italian which is preffered and the objective value of the ruy being questioned"

Arawn_of_Annuvin wrote:

"Do you know this to be true? Of recorded games in 1915, 79 were played with the Ruy Lopez and 28 with the Italian Game."

Well?

Staunton's Handbook appeared in 1847. You could do better with the Steinitz Modern Chess Instructor, but that is still well before 1900.

It appears that you wrote incorrectly about the state of things "100 years ago". You can retroactively insert the word, "approximately", into it and adopt a broad definition of "approximately", but that doesn't change your original reference to the time of Lasker with Capablanca and Alekhine up and coming. The chess world changed a LOT between the days of the Modern Chess Instructor and 1915.

I've thought about switching to 1.d4 from 1.e4. I think I'd like QGD and Nimzo's from white's side.

But good lord, so much to learn if you've never played 1.d4. I only have vauge ideas in KIDs and grunfelds.

Thankfully most openings (maybe better to say chess itself) is/are flexible enough that I can get positions types I like with 1.e4, and that's what's important.

Fiveofswords wrote:

"i am actually familiar with various games during the lasker era and im quite aware that the ruy was more popular than the italian by that time. and so what? maybe being the clever human you are you can show how this is at all relevant to the actual point i was making. because it very much escapes my notice if it is relevant at all."

Are you saying that you feel it was okay to write something about the time of Lasker/Capablanca/Alekhine when you were "quite aware" that it was false? How about the speed with which you agreed to a correction?

The one guy on the planet who is mentally ill enough to have developed, over the course of many years, this elaborate theory about you is reading this now (with his tin foil hat strapped firmly against his matted hair) and sweating bullets.

Some titled players make you wonder a little... sometimes I think if they didn't happen to have a coach at 7 years old, and instead learned as an adult, that all their paste eating would have relegated them to sub 1000 ratings for life 

Not necessarily anyone here by the way.

Fiveofswords wrote:

"yes i was intentionally trying to mislead people about chess history. that makes so much sense ..."

Please note (without taking six months) that that assertion was not made by me. The attempt here has been to understand what YOU have been saying. So far we have had you saying the Italian was preferred 100 years ago AND that you are quite aware that the ruy was more popular by the Lasker era. We also have had your "so what" reaction about six months after Arawn_of_Annuvin asked his question about 1915. I now see that you have "deeply apologize"d, and it only remains to wonder how you feel about taking about six months to do it.

OP scores 44% im the svesh; a stones throw away from 80 

I can't stop laughing this is great stuff.

It was a random number not to be taken literal lol.

I can't believe he took it literal.

I have tears coming out of my eyes laughing so hard.

Oh shame on you FOS.

Intentionally Misleading history lol.

We knew you had a sinister plan.

Your attempts to stop our Cambridge Springs Tournament have been unsuccessful.

We are now undeterred in our actions.

Your misleading attacks have only strengthened our resolve.

We shall continue on with our Cambridge Springs Tournament according to scheduled.

This Cambridge Springs Tournament will be a symbol of our Glorious Triumph on the behave of our future chess children.

Let it be known on January 20.

In the year of our Lord 2016, chess patriots, starving and out ranked, charged the battle fields.

They fought like warrior poets.

They fought with honor.

And won their freedom to preserve the factual history!

Every man dies, not every man really lives.

The sad thing is in the vote chess games involved with here over the years, a lot of people actually beleived the guff of the OP's post. This was especially true of the "top" vote chess teams. As it turned the "top" teams were mostly run by software users, who knew nothing about chess when using their own minds.

You can't say that every sharp opening is unsound, just for that reason.

Give me a single line that justifies the notation 3... Bg7?!.

It's actually quite simple. 1. d4 wins, 1. e4 loses. Hope this helps :)