You have to admire uhohspaghettio's resilience. He makes an absurd statement, gets flattened, and bounces right back up with another absurd statement.
why d4 is better than e4
Sort:
This is what I know concerning this subject .... one of the greatest minds in the history of chess was asked why he played e4 so regularly .... his response was " When I play e4, I win ! " That man was Bobby Fisher.
uhohspaghettio wrote:
The dragon has been refuted for decades now. Bobby Fischer would be turning in his grave if he knew the amount of people that still play it.
The dragon is refuted? Please tell me how, it happens that i play it.
Feb 17, 2012
0
#85
e4 is better. d4 is easier. The d-pawn is well defended by the queen, whereas the e-pawn is sent out all alone, doing the work of a martyr. It's a no brainer as to which one is easier.
Why, 1.e4 could be considered a gambit opening. 
Feb 17, 2012
0
#86
pfren wrote:
... an "offbeat opening"...
I can bet that your main opening weapon is the Buzumbura Gambit.
Google has never heard of the Buzumbura Gambit. If google is not aware of it, then it definitely qualifies as well off the beaten path. 
I can't find it, and I own many books on opening theory. Please post it in algebraic notation. I like the sound of it. Thank you. 
If dragon players have their collective fingers crossed that their opponents play the Yugoslav Attack, then what is the line that you claim practically plays itself?
First you say the dragon is refuted then you offer evidence that shows at master level Black wins over 30% and White wins a little over 40%. If White masters are winning less than 50% , then how does this support your assertion that the opening has been refuted. 30% sounds pretty good if Black is in a must win situation. If the opening has been refuted White should be winning about 95% at the master and above level.
You state that super GMs only play the dragon for suprise value. If Kasparov only played it once against Anand in a championship match, you might make an argument; but how can you claim that he played it only for surprise value, when he plays it a second time in the same match? Radjabov plays the Dragon far too often for anyone to be surprised by it.
Feb 17, 2012
0
#88
pfren wrote:
@ Musikamole: The opening moves of the Buzumbura Gambit vary according to the day of the week the game is played.
This is a common element of all the "non-offbeat" openings.
You gotta be kidding me. Days of the week? Well, if it is like an Opening System, like the King's Indian Attack, or the Colle, where move order is not important, then please post the "system moves". Thanks.
I have a thick book on Unorthodox Openings by Eric Schiller. I'll give that book a try.
uhohspaghettio wrote:
BattleManager wrote:
uhohspaghettio wrote:
The dragon has been refuted for decades now. Bobby Fischer would be turning in his grave if he knew the amount of people that still play it.
The dragon is refuted? Please tell me how, it happens that i play it.
If you've been playing it for a while you probably know more than me how. Look at 365 chess for example and the Dragon is doing quite badly among masters. http://www.365chess.com/opening.php?m=10&n=3&ms=e4.c5.Nf3.d6.d4.cxd4.Nxd4.Nf6.Nc3&ns=3.3.4.4.3.3.4.4.3 This is despite all the diehard dragon fans forcibly trying to make it work.
If super gms play it on the rare occasion, it's purely for surprise value and as a trollololing device, like how some people here play 1... h5 2... g5
The attacks against the dragon practically play themself, white hardly has to know any book. Meanwhile for every move white makes black has to know every variation and sub-variation around it to scrape out of it. White may have some problems if he presses too hard, but the problems for black grow exponentially harder.
"White hardly has to know any book" You didn't just say that...And how does a refuted opening score so well?
Feb 17, 2012
0
#90
The Buzumbura Gambit not in Unorthodox Openings by Eric Schiller. I don't own Schiller's book on gambits.
... why I am wasting my time, reading posts on "refution" of mainline openings... Hey, idiots, when we have Quantum Computers 1000 years from now, we will perhaps know something along those lines, but the 'SOLUTION' will still be beyone the human brain.
Do you know that there are more possible chess games than No.of atoms in the visible part of Universe?
If you are thinking about 'refuting' 1.e4 or 1.d4, try first to win 100 games out of 100 against Houdini 1.5 in any theoretically equal endgame (with, e.g., five pawns each). It will be a much easier task.
I'm sure Bobby Fischer doesn't have any trouble finding excuses to turn in his grave, the mad bastard.
Feb 18, 2012
0
#93
Dear chess.com readers,
Great news. I've discovered a clear-cut refutation of the Sicilian Dragon! Unfortunately I don't quite have space to write it down in this comment box, but you can look forward to reading about it in my upcoming book, "Chess, The Universe, and Everything".
Alternatively, I can explain the main details of my startling discovery through online lessons at the generous rate of $200/hour - only 50 cents per move, plus you get to hear my voice over skype. For an additional $50 I will also sing "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot".
Sincerely,
- GargleBlaster
I can't believe it. I am here again, posting.
Well played Well played
melvinbluestone wrote:
GargleBlaster wrote:
You're weird.
I take umbrage!
I take the umbrage out every tuesday morning, its one of my honey do's.
Musikamole wrote:
e4 is better. d4 is easier. The d-pawn is well defended by the queen, whereas the e-pawn is sent out all alone, doing the work of a martyr. It's a no brainer as to which one is easier.
Why, 1.e4 could be considered a gambit opening.
e4 fails to the french. don't believe me, challenge as white and play e4. then send another challenge as black. i'll play d4
ajian wrote:
Musikamole wrote:
e4 is better. d4 is easier. The d-pawn is well defended by the queen, whereas the e-pawn is sent out all alone, doing the work of a martyr. It's a no brainer as to which one is easier.
Why, 1.e4 could be considered a gambit opening.
e4 fails to the french. don't believe me, challenge as white and play e4. then send another challenge as black. i'll play d4
I play the French myself all the time. It's not a refutation to 1.e4 in the slightest, otherwise no one would be playing 1.e4 at all. In an age full of computer analyses, why are we STILL playing 1.e4? It's obviously not refuted, dubious, or even as questionable as you make it out to be.
d4 is protected, while e4 opens diagnals on the first turn. Pick whichever you like best. They both have to deal with nasty defenses.
KefkaKGA wrote:
ajian wrote:
Musikamole wrote:
e4 is better. d4 is easier. The d-pawn is well defended by the queen, whereas the e-pawn is sent out all alone, doing the work of a martyr. It's a no brainer as to which one is easier.
Why, 1.e4 could be considered a gambit opening.
e4 fails to the french. don't believe me, challenge as white and play e4. then send another challenge as black. i'll play d4
I play the French myself all the time. It's not a refutation to 1.e4 in the slightest, otherwise no one would be playing 1.e4 at all. In an age full of computer analyses, why are we STILL playing 1.e4? It's obviously not refuted, dubious, or even as questionable as you make it out to be.
d4 is protected, while e4 opens diagnals on the first turn. Pick whichever you like best. They both have to deal with nasty defenses.
you probrably see that in the french defense, white is barely hanging on to d4 and e5, while black is attacking them, tying down all of white's pieces. unless you don't play the shown variation.
The dragon has been refuted for decades now. Bobby Fischer would be turning in his grave if he knew the amount of people that still play it.
You need to tell Anand, Ivanchuk, Khalifman, Kamsky, Topalov, and Kasparov who have all played it. More than one dragon has been played between Anand and Kasparov in world championship matches.
Fischer's famous words were: "...I'd won dozens of skittles games in analogous positions and had it down to a science: pry open the h-file, sac, sac...mate!"; but as Kasparov says,"Chess is not skittles!"