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
why d4 is better than e4
Sort:
TeraHammer wrote:
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
If you think that these preconditions are achieved via stupid gambits (granted, not all gambits are stupid), then you are terribly misinformed.
You MUST learn how the pieces are moving and being optimally placed well before diving into combinational play. Else, you will lose all the time, by playing ill combinations.
Feb 15, 2012
0
#64
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.
There is no discrimination between "positional play" and tactical play". Chess is n entity. Tactics is a vital part of the game, but there cannot be tactics without the necessary preconditions. That's why the basic strategical rules MUST be learned before diving into combinational play- else you just assimilate useless knowledge, simple as that.
Feb 15, 2012
0
#66
you contradict yourself.
Look as soon as move 2 there are tactics going on with for example the 'closed' d4 d5 c4. Why is white giving black a pawn? Or is it an opening trap?
Never the mention the Ruy Lopez: the main line is full of combinations based on the attack on e5. Now understand i dont want to say opening theory must be learned, but that the game of chess is full of combinations.
Yeah, you are right. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 is the ultimate tactic device. I had forgot that the c-pawn can move two squares. Thanks for enlightening me.
TeraHammer wrote:
you contradict yourself. Look as soon as move 2 there are tactics going on with for example the 'closed' d4 d5 c4. Why is white giving black a pawn? Or is it an opening trap? Never the mention the Ruy Lopez: the main line is full of combinations based on the attack on e5. Now understand i dont want to say opening theory must be learned, but that the game of chess is full of combinations.
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.
lol, when i clicked to this thread i knew it would bullshit
But it just got to the capslock key...
i prefer e4 O:)
uhohspaghettio wrote:
HughMyron wrote:
Depends on what you like. Karpov liked e4 and Kasparov liked d4, believe it or not.
This is mainly because of the times. 1. e4 is now considered to allow too many drawing chances among the GMs, so it is only used irregularly. 54.7% of 1. e4 e5 games are draws compared to only 50.8% of 1. d4 games according to chess365 (the Sicilian causes a lot less draws, but that's black's option to play). This is why 1. e4 is a very rare thing in world championship matches nowadays while back in 2000 and previous to that it was played all the time.
a spike in draw rates, ummm, i think i read somewhere that it's mainly due to the rise in popularity of the petroff (russian) defence and the berlin ruy lopez (nicknamed the berlin wall), two very drawish openings.
The Berlin is not drawish at all.
Factly, the most drawish Ruy Lopez variations are the two gambits: the Marshall, and the Jaenisch.
The main variation of the Jaenisch (4.Nc3 de4 5.Nxe4 Nf6 6.Nxf6+ Qxf6 7.Qe2 Be7) is drawish (pawn down endgame vs bishop pair, or opposite coloured bishops)- what else could it be?
5...d5 used to be enterprising, but it's refuted- nobody plays it any more.
More and more people are turning their attention to 4.d3, but Radjabov has found a way to draw here, as well.
I have played the Jaenisch as black more than 80 times OTB against all levels of opposition, and I know very well what I'm talking about.
I think it's you that you are embarrased by your gaping ignorance.
Feb 16, 2012
0
#79
As a fairly long-time Schliemann addict, I have to reluctantly agree with pfren about the unavoidably drawish lines that White can engineer if he so desires. That said, I find that, practically speaking, White will often try for "more" unless there's a big rating disparity or what not.
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?
Ah, this is the simple part of the equation:
- Well developed forces
- Weak points in the opponents camp
- Loose material
When some (all) of these preconditions exist, then the time is ripe for tactics. But tactics out of the blue? No way. They will fail, simple as that.