Almost 7 years since OP
why d4 is better than e4
Sort:
And you are playing the sicilian these days...! Fancy that 
Jan 6, 2019
0
#624
d4 has a higher percentage of wins than e4 because of the Sicilian Defense have a better-than-most percentage of wins and it's player frequently.
As others have said though, 1 e4 allows faster development and it was Bobby Fischer's almost exclusive choice the year he set the still all-time high one-year performance rating.
Jan 6, 2019
0
#625
d4 scores better than e4, so that is a good argument that it is better.
However, Matthew Wilson claims that if you control for:
- The difference in the player's ratings
- The players' average rating
- The rating gap multiplied by the average rating
Then e4 is allegedly slightly stronger statistically. But I am not a statistician, so I do not know whether Mr. Wilson is right or wrong here. What do you guys think? If you guys have a background in statistics, is Mr. Wilson's analysis sound or unsound?
https://en.chessbase.com/post/1-e4-best-by-test-part-2
Basically, e4 lets the opponent play the Sicilian against you - and if your opponent is more able tactically than you are, he can slaughter you with it. Whereas d4 lets you keep the game simple, emphasizing positional play. So under certain circumstances d4 is better. Under other circumstances, e4 is better, like if you're Fischer or Kasparov, and fear no opponent.
Jan 7, 2019
0
#627
Take a look at PowerBook data. This is several years old, but is unlikely to change much. As you can see, 1.c4 has both the best score and the highest performance rating.
Мне нравится e4
never ... hehehe
Ziryab wrote:
Take a look at PowerBook data. This is several years old, but is unlikely to change much. As you can see, 1.c4 has both the best score and the highest performance rating.
My old eyes went to validate that nothing was higher than 55.7% for 1. c4.
And then it went all the way down to spot 1. Na3 at 60%, lol.
Jan 7, 2019
0
#631
SeniorPatzer wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Take a look at PowerBook data. This is several years old, but is unlikely to change much. As you can see, 1.c4 has both the best score and the highest performance rating.
My old eyes went to validate that nothing was higher than 55.7% for 1. c4.
And then it went all the way down to spot 1. Na3 at 60%, lol.
Yes, but five games in a database of 1.7 million is not a very useful statistic. Even 1.b3 and 1.f4 have too few games for statistical significance, it seems to me. But, my only stats course in college was Educational Membership, sort of an introduction to statistics for dummies. If you could distinguish median from mean, you got out of that class with a decent grade.
Chessking47 schreef:
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...
I think Nimzo Indian Queen Indian and Catalan are better for black.
Jan 7, 2019
0
#633
RubenHogenhout wrote:
I think Nimzo Indian Queen Indian and Catalan are better for black.
Black can find himself lost rather quickly making normal developing moves against the Catalan.
Jan 12, 2019
0
#634
Glaucon333 wrote:
d4 scores better than e4, so that is a good argument that it is better.
However, Matthew Wilson claims that if you control for:
- The difference in the player's ratings
- The players' average rating
- The rating gap multiplied by the average rating
Then e4 is allegedly slightly stronger statistically. But I am not a statistician, so I do not know whether Mr. Wilson is right or wrong here. What do you guys think? If you guys have a background in statistics, is Mr. Wilson's analysis sound or unsound?
Does someone want to discuss Professor Wilson's analysis here?
Ed1325 schreef:
Both e4 and d4 are not and will never be refuted, there are billions and billions of options for both sides, it's impossible to say that one day if somebody plays e4 or d4 people will know millions of huge combinations of moves and positions that will always give black a win.
Everybody knows that 1.e4 1.d4 1.c4 and 1.Nf3 are the four best moves for white to start a chess game.
But that does not mean that 1.b3 Larsen 1.e3 van der Struik 1.Nc3 van Geet 1.g3 ( Kings fianchetto in the forhand? ) 1.d3 ( Pirc in the forhand ? ) or 1.f4 are not playable moves. They are all good. Only maybe 1.g4? gives black a plus and it would be bettter to pass. ( thus to play with black ) this can be considerd as a weaking move. The position in the beginning without a move is better.
Ziryab schreef:
RubenHogenhout wrote:
I think Nimzo Indian Queen Indian and Catalan are better for black.
Black can find himself lost rather quickly making normal developing moves against the Catalan.
I think Catalan does not give white so much. It is often drawisch. I agree with the Nimzo you can more easy play for a win with black.
1.d4 is the best anti-sicilian but it leads to repetitive and boring "closed" games...
unspeakblegaming909 wrote:
Are u guys stupid? E4 is better!
You should talk to Carlsen about this. To be honest the "best" opening is the one that gives YOU the best results.
This is why the best opening is the Halloween
funnily enough stockfish ten prefers e4 as opposed to stockfish 9s d4 however they both evaluate them as basically the same
Almost 4 years