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.
No way man.
Tactical awareness of positions is required first before you can plan anything long-term.
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.
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.
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.
Your friend was two hundred percent wrong, sorry for that.
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. 
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
But how can an average player decide when the time is right to open a position without awareness of the implications of the tactical skirmish that is to follow?
Funny thing how you post the things the aggressive e4 players are looking for.
- Well developed forces: by gambits for example for quick development
- Weak points in the opponents camp: f7, anyone?
- Loose material = weak points
But my point: you learn and experience the strenght of your pieces in tactical situations! Then your pieces start shining!
Then, indeed - in getting to situations where you know that your pieces shine, slower positional play might be needed.
[quote] Else, you will lose all the time, by playing ill combinations.[/quote]
I look at this differently: by playing an combination and it fails then you learn why it fails and you adept.
Like prfen said. you Must learn the strategy of chess before you dive into tactics. Also, you have to learn that this gambit is associated with direct attacks on the king an strength in the center
Also, to you who think most 2700+ players play e4 exclusively, its probrably black who's going by the nadjorf, which is really bad. If you don't believe me, view my sicilian variation and weaknesses of nadjorf posts.
It is amazing that this myth of 1.e4 being more aggressive/tactical compared to 1.d4 still goes on to such a big extent.
Not only most of the top players prefer 1.d4 over 1.e4, but the most brilliant chess player on tactics (the magician from Riga), for many-many years considered 1.e4 an inferior choice, simply because he was eager for tactics.
Seriously, I think that all those people who are saying that 1.e4 is the way to go for tactics probably have not even tried 1.d4. I think that once you try it, you never go back. Much richer positions arise through 1.d4. And since the positions are more interesting with 1.d4 this also explains the natural preference on 1.d4 by most of the top rated players.
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!