why d4 is better than e4

Sort:
JGambit

also to optimissed, thats my bad, I was just upset because I didn't think of the obvious fact that the draws do matter.

TitanCG
chessman1504 wrote:
cosmicharmonic wrote:

Lord don't play either of these ridiculously overthoughtout styles.  Everyone and their parakeet knows how to counter them and they're prepared to the hilt to demonstrate it.  Here's an novelty: play uniquely and really express your ownself rather than rehash alredy played games and booklearned redundancy.  Honestly, playing "the best" first move (pounding fist on the table) is not the best strategy.  Play the Grob, for example (just an example, it doesn't need to turn into a Grob-bash forum, it is just a specific example), lull them into a false sense of security, for when they laugh and let down their guard, their overconfidence sinks their ship.  Playing the obvious "proper" (snobbish) way (either d4 or e4) is akin to the Revolutionary War British walking in file asking to be mowed down by American guerillas.  Make them think from move one; folks playing this sport are not prepared for this and are relying on their memorization skills to take them into move 10 before they wish to start thinking.  When a question is structured in duality (d4 or e4), the entire point is missed and as such the ultimate answer is "neither."  This way is what Buddhists call the Third Way.

I think this may be a bit too much of a "don't follow the trend" hipster type of post. Don't play 1.e4 or d4 because both are "too mainstream." I mean seriously, make them think from move 1? Why not make them think from move... I don't know, 5? There doesn't seem to be a huge difference. I think it's also a bit too much to suggest that it's snobbish. Being snobbish and following standards are two different things.

 

I mean, I understand the sentiment of " you have more choices than e4 and d4 as opening moves," but, I think the game always comes down to who has mastered more of chess or is mentally tougher than some advanced knowledge. I think that this could start from move 1 or move 25, but at our level it doesn't matter. I do believe, however, that it is easier to learn 1.e4 and 1.d4 positions and thereby increase chess understanding as opposed to winging it with something else.

I think the real danger is that the weird move leads to a normal position that the player can't play because he was too busy trying to be original.

cosmicharmonic

This was my 1,000 game experiment:

Playing the Grob as white = 68% win;

Playing the Borg as black = 64% win

The classicists don't want to hear this, but sorry folks, it pretty much doesn't matter what you play, it's how you play it.  

The tunnel vision in here is astounding; folks just don't want to try anything new; too scared, or too tiny a peeny.

Irontiger
MetalRatel wrote:

The Grob is a third way...backwards.

I like it when my opponents get "creative" like this.

Hear, hear !

 

Frankly, if you absolutely need to get away from theory at move 1, both 1.g3 and 1.b3 are good enough that you don't need to pull out some groblike crap.

Irontiger
cosmicharmonic wrote:

This was my 1,000 game experiment:

Playing the Grob as white = 68% win;

Playing the Borg as black = 64% win

The classicists don't want to hear this, but sorry folks, it pretty much doesn't matter what you play, it's how you play it.  

Here is my tournament record against the Grob as Black : 100%. (On a sample size of 1 game, for I don't know, 300 tournament games ?)

Guess what, I think the sample size is proving more than the stats.

 

"Creativity" always comes at some price. Mainlines are mainlines for some reason. The price you are ready to pay decreases when your ability improves.

Now if you enjoy throwing away pawns, go ahead. But don't come up saying it is the "best" way to play on evaluation criteria.

cosmicharmonic
Irontiger wrote:

Here is my tournament record against the Grob as Black : 100%. (On a sample size of 1 game, for I don't know, 300 tournament games ?)

Bingo, Irontiger; you've faced it once, unlike having faced P-K4 150 times and P-Q4 150 times.  Folks already know how to play against these interstates.  Find your own path.

ajian

find your own path:

ok. like what. most other paths (exceptions, c4, nf3, g3, and maybe b3) are refuted and if you are playing people who are 1800-1900 level USCF (mine is 1849), then they can refute stuff like 1. e3 with simple logic.

Irontiger
cosmicharmonic wrote:
Irontiger wrote:

Here is my tournament record against the Grob as Black : 100%. (On a sample size of 1 game, for I don't know, 300 tournament games ?)

Bingo, Irontiger; you've faced it once, unlike having faced P-K4 150 times and P-Q4 150 times.  Folks already know how to play against these interstates.  Find your own path.

Trolling gets improved by the use of descriptive notation, but I am not impressed.

cosmicharmonic

This is the well trodden path of 1.e4

This is the heavily travelled path of 1.d4 (sheeple)

 

This is the practically unexplored path of 1.g4

A master who has actually played a thousand games of the Kolibri (or Genoa or Grob or Spike) at his level, yes, does know; however, the masters who have not played 1,000 games of the Kolibri and are still posting that it cannot be done are at heart cowardly defeatists who speak not from experience but prejudice and bias.  A non-master who hasn't played the games doesn't know from experience either.  Hence bashers both masters and non-masters, stfu.  One who has done it through experience knows it's playable, enjoyable, and works more successfully at equal level of competition than either 1. d4 or 1. e4.  Don'tcha friggin wanna ever see something new?    For those too obtuse to understand the value of novelty:

ajian

ok?

AlanZhang

wtf

Radical_Drift
cosmicharmonic wrote:

This was my 1,000 game experiment:

Playing the Grob as white = 68% win;

Playing the Borg as black = 64% win

The classicists don't want to hear this, but sorry folks, it pretty much doesn't matter what you play, it's how you play it.  

The tunnel vision in here is astounding; folks just don't want to try anything new; too scared, or too tiny a peeny.

Yes, more of the same. From the way you post, I would think you'd be on the other side of the too tiny a peeny spectrum.

JGambit

Its funny to me that the people who say "think for yourself" don't realize that many people esp chessplayers do think independantly and often decide they like e4 or d4.

There are enough different ways to play after the first move for most mortals, I think the main reason why inferior openings score well at club level is pychological and people play some pet system, that often gets them in lines they know. Once people actually develop as players say around 2000 or 2200, these pet systems become shown to be what they are, at the very best not losing. 

TitanCG

The fact of the matter is that you should be able to find original play regardless of the first move. Not being able to has nothing to do with the pawn you pushed on move one. 

Yaroslavl
TitanCG wrote:

The fact of the matter is that you should be able to find original play regardless of the first move. Not being able to has nothing to do with the pawn you pushed on move one. 

Because pawns cannot move backwards, every pawn move changes the position on the board permanently.  If you are a weak player you will not know why every pawn move, including the first one of the game affected being able to find original play.  When you become a strong player you are keenly aware of how your own pawn moves as well as your opponent's pawn moves affect the position on the board permanently and have a deep and long lasting effect on being able to find original play.

MetalRatel

Yes, a move like 1.g4 is worse than a "pass" (i.e. playing Black). I suspect this may even be true of 1.f4. Unfortunately, I don't have pictures to justify my statements. :P

There is innovative and suicidal. They should not be confused.

cosmicharmonic

MetalRatel
ajian wrote:

find your own path:

ok. like what. most other paths (exceptions, c4, nf3, g3, and maybe b3) are refuted and if you are playing people who are 1800-1900 level USCF (mine is 1849), then they can refute stuff like 1. e3 with simple logic.

1.e3 cannot be refuted no sooner than the Colle can be refuted. Unambitious yes, but unsound certainly no.

TitanCG
Yaroslavl wrote:
TitanCG wrote:

The fact of the matter is that you should be able to find original play regardless of the first move. Not being able to has nothing to do with the pawn you pushed on move one. 

Because pawns cannot move backwards, every pawn move changes the position on the board permanently.  If you are a weak player you will not know why every pawn move, including the first one of the game affected being able to find original play.  When you become a strong player you are keenly aware of how your own pawn moves as well as your opponent's pawn moves affect the position on the board permanently and have a deep and long lasting effect on being able to find original play.

There are multiple ways to play many positions. The first move doesnt force you to play in any particular way.

DaveOakRidges

I believe all squares are equal.