1. d4 is better because black scores well with the Sicilian against 1. e4, but in 1. d4 it leads to less play with the pieces but play with the pawns, and with d4, black has few choices that are the best; Bogo-indian, King's Indian, Queen's Gambit...
why d4 is better than e4
Sort:
The better opening is the one that is played against me. The worse one is the one I play! Hey! That's the way it's been going lately!
hessmaster wrote:
BattleManager wrote:
ajian wrote:
Reb wrote:
I played 1 e4 almost exclusively from 1973-1997 then moved to Europe ( Portugal ) where I started playing 1 d4 as well . I switched to 1 d4 because I was tired of playing so many sicilians . ( I play several sicilians as black against 1 e4 ) I started playing 1 d4 because I wanted more variety in the openings I played/faced. Now I play both and the sicilian doesnt refute 1 e4 anymore than the nimzo indian refutes 1 d4 . ( they score very similar percentages for black ) Karpov and Kasparov both played 1 e4 and 1 d4 in their careers ... Spassky did as well.
The nimzo indian just lets white have a strong center, and it turns into the passive declined variation.(even though I like declined better than slav.)The french Does refute e4, because black is able to prove lots of weaknesses in white's position
How does the french refute e4? Show the lines please...because as far as i remember black also has lots of weaknesses in the french(example:kingside on the winawer/weak dark squares).
Don't forget white also has weaknesses in the winawer. Black does get weak dark squares but white's kingside pawn structure is just as bad.
I'm pretty sure you mean queenside.Also give me the line that you think refutes e4 with the french(and i think you also said sicilian refuted e4 so you can also give a line for that), please, so we can discuss that variation.
Feb 14, 2012
0
#45
If you're better with tactics, play open positions, so 1. e4! (1. d4? results in closed)
If you're better with positional plans, play closed positions, so 1. d4! (1. e4? will get you murdered)
And if you're a sadist, play 1. Nf3!
TeraHammer wrote:
If you're better with tactics, play open positions, so 1. e4! (1. d4? results in closed)
If you're better with positional plans, play closed positions, so 1. d4! (1. e4? will get you murdered)
And if you're a sadist, play 1. Nf3!
Blah, blah, and blah. Too many advices, too little chess. Nobody needs such crap.
An agressive player can well start with 1.d4 (say Jobava), and a positional player can start with 1.e4 (say Malakhov). A patzer will play nonsense, no matter if his first move is 1.e4 or 1.Na3.
At least, if he plays the latter, he can blame his loss at his poor opening.
Feb 14, 2012
0
#47
Come on pfren lighten up. As you can see from my last line I am not being totally serious.
However, I was taught by a good chess player friend of mine to go for e4 openings because its tactics what is first needed to develop one's play, positional ideas (and even harder, the assessment of the possibility for a positinal idea to succeed) will come later with experience.
Feb 14, 2012
0
#49
No way man.
Tactical awareness of positions is required first before you can plan anything long-term.
BattleManager wrote:
hessmaster wrote:
BattleManager wrote:
ajian wrote:
Reb wrote:
I played 1 e4 almost exclusively from 1973-1997 then moved to Europe ( Portugal ) where I started playing 1 d4 as well . I switched to 1 d4 because I was tired of playing so many sicilians . ( I play several sicilians as black against 1 e4 ) I started playing 1 d4 because I wanted more variety in the openings I played/faced. Now I play both and the sicilian doesnt refute 1 e4 anymore than the nimzo indian refutes 1 d4 . ( they score very similar percentages for black ) Karpov and Kasparov both played 1 e4 and 1 d4 in their careers ... Spassky did as well.
The nimzo indian just lets white have a strong center, and it turns into the passive declined variation.(even though I like declined better than slav.)The french Does refute e4, because black is able to prove lots of weaknesses in white's position
How does the french refute e4? Show the lines please...because as far as i remember black also has lots of weaknesses in the french(example:kingside on the winawer/weak dark squares).
Don't forget white also has weaknesses in the winawer. Black does get weak dark squares but white's kingside pawn structure is just as bad.
I'm pretty sure you mean queenside.Also give me the line that you think refutes e4 with the french(and i think you also said sicilian refuted e4 so you can also give a line for that), please, so we can discuss that variation.
in the evidence i gave first, black has a MUCH,MUCH better position in any line.
1. d4 controls 2 central squares, d4 and e5. 1. e4 only controls d5. The upshot is that Black can more easily counterattack against e4 than against d4.
Watson lays it out in Mastering the Chess Openings, vol. 2.
banjoman wrote:
1. d4 controls 2 central squares, d4 and e5. 1. e4 only controls d5. The upshot is that Black can more easily counterattack against e4 than against d4.
Watson lays it out in Mastering the Chess Openings, vol. 2.
So 1.d4 controls itself, but 1.e4 doesn't? I guess all these GMs playing 1.e4 don't know it yet :(
Well, e4 is undefended. This is completely academic, of course, and tells absolutely nothing about the relative merits of the moves.
But 1.d4 Nc6 is playable, although its logic is a bit different than 1.e4 Nf6... 
It's a matter of personal style, like saying black clothes are better than white. A highly tactical player will prefer 1e4, a highly positional one starts 1d4. The d4 pawn is protected, the e-pawn isn't; but e4 frees the King Bishop. Tony, Chess coach, England.
pfren wrote:
Your friend was two hundred percent wrong, sorry for that.
melvinbluestone wrote:
pfren wrote:
Your friend was two hundred percent wrong, sorry for that.
Two hundred percent! Well, it could be worse........ he could have been three or four hundred percent wrong!
His friend was two hundred percent wrong about chess but pfren was two hundred percent wrong about math. 
TeraHammer wrote:
If you're better with tactics, play open positions, so 1. e4! (1. d4? results in closed)
If you're better with positional plans, play closed positions, so 1. d4! (1. e4? will get you murdered)
And if you're a sadist, play 1. Nf3!
im a 1.e4 player myself but some players would argue that 1.d4 doesnt result in closed positions but just delays the opening of the position until you are ready for it. i often myself get annoyed over trying to develop as fast as possible with 1.e4 and black seems to find ways to trade of most pieces and the game becomes more dull. this is more due to my lack of skill than 1.e4 but i still think it counts
I played 1 e4 almost exclusively from 1973-1997 then moved to Europe ( Portugal ) where I started playing 1 d4 as well . I switched to 1 d4 because I was tired of playing so many sicilians . ( I play several sicilians as black against 1 e4 ) I started playing 1 d4 because I wanted more variety in the openings I played/faced. Now I play both and the sicilian doesnt refute 1 e4 anymore than the nimzo indian refutes 1 d4 . ( they score very similar percentages for black ) Karpov and Kasparov both played 1 e4 and 1 d4 in their careers ... Spassky did as well.
The nimzo indian just lets white have a strong center, and it turns into the passive declined variation.(even though I like declined better than slav.)The french Does refute e4, because black is able to prove lots of weaknesses in white's position
How does the french refute e4? Show the lines please...because as far as i remember black also has lots of weaknesses in the french(example:kingside on the winawer/weak dark squares).