why d4 is better than e4

Sort:
Avatar of mrguy888
Reb wrote:

Its always fun to watch someone with no verifiable chess credentials argue with those who have them .  I think next time I go to the doctor I will argue with him about medicine ! 


Sadly, I bet that is very common due to internet diagnostics sites and stuff.

Avatar of Ubik42
Reb wrote:

Its always fun to watch someone with no verifiable chess credentials argue with those who have them .  I think next time I go to the doctor I will argue with him about medicine ! 


 Much like the global warming denialists.

Avatar of Ubik42

Argh! I have been playing e4 for awhile...how hard is it to switch?

(a life-ban on the first person who says "its easy, just move the queen pawn up two squares")

Avatar of GargleBlaster

Actually, I get the feeling patients are sometimes better informed, or at least more objective, about certain aspects of drug prescriptions than doctors, at least in America.  But I digress... :)

Avatar of pfren

Arguing sensibly is very good thing.

Unfortunately you seem having earned your divorce from sanity a long time ago.

Avatar of Arctor

As if it needed to be said, there's a difference between drawish and boring.

Ruy Lopez Marshall. Drawish? Yes. Boring? No

Ruy Lopez Berlin. Drawish? Not if you know what you're doing. Boring? No

Exchane Slav. Drawish? Yes. Boring? Yes

Sicilian Najdorf. Drawish? No. Boring? No

etc.

Avatar of TheOldReb
uhohspaghettio wrote:
Reb wrote:

Its always fun to watch someone with no verifiable chess credentials argue with those who have them .  I think next time I go to the doctor I will argue with him about medicine ! 


Reb, I think you need to get a grip. You yourself are only an NM. In a way all titles are unnecessary, but the NM has to be the most ridiculous of all.

How dare a person argue or make a point to someone with a title. If you want to play knights and Sirs and high priests and lords and noblemen and peasants that's fine, I am trying to talk about phenomena in chess and you are just making ad hominem attacks with no reason or logic or argument attached. I daresay your "distinguished" title has gone to your head.


I wasnt even referring to me but to IM Pfren .  While the NM title may be ridiculous to you ( and maybe other chess titles as well ? )  I assure you its not ridiculous to those who have earned it and those who are trying to earn it . 

Avatar of MightyMouse

@ uhohspaghettio:

Apparently you haven't played 1.d4 that much.

To put it simply: 1.e4 is so popular in low level simply because when people learn chess it is the easiest way for someone teaching them how to play in the opening to justify the battle for the center. For the obvious reasons.

Then these players start to develop, and by being humans they simply build on their past experiences and games so that they actually learn faster. This justifies that they are focusing more on 1.e4 and are probably not even willing to change and try 1.d4. (How many of us can actually devote to chess as much time as we want?) Hence, they have the illusion that 1.d4 is a "positional" move and live happily in their own fantasy world. Well, apart from Sicilian, I think that 1.e4 is the positional move. But whatever. You are convinced anyway.

The fact of the matter is that with 1.d4 if White wants to push Black to a super aggressive line, he can do so in a much bigger percentage of openings compared to 1.e4.

Now go on, read the autobiography of Tal, and try to convince him that he was a positional player. lol

That, and end of story for me too.

Avatar of ajian

e4 is easy to deal with. d4 puts plack in dilemmas where white keeps pressure on d5 and closes down blacks position. As hessmaster said, e4 is refuted. d4 is not, and will not be. The only reason e4 is at the top of the popularity list is because black plays nadjorf or dragon, and then white crushes.

Avatar of KefkaKGA
ajian wrote:

e4 is easy to deal with. d4 puts plack in dilemmas where white keeps pressure on d5 and closes down blacks position. As hessmaster said, e4 is refuted. d4 is not, and will not be. The only reason e4 is at the top of the popularity list is because black plays nadjorf or dragon, and then white crushes.


 

Opinions being stated as fact. I'm afraid these sort of things are inescapable :(

Avatar of pfren

When you hear something claiming that "e4 is refuted" then have a look at his games. A great laugh is absolutely guaranteed!

Avatar of BattleManager
ajian wrote:

e4 is easy to deal with. d4 puts plack in dilemmas where white keeps pressure on d5 and closes down blacks position. As hessmaster said, e4 is refuted. d4 is not, and will not be. The only reason e4 is at the top of the popularity list is because black plays nadjorf or dragon, and then white crushes.


Do you actually know what refuted means? And just because the najdorf scores well with black against e4 you come here to say that it refutes e4 lmao...even without giving any lines. And when you said that the french refuted e4, do you still think that? I could play 3.exd5 against the french and e4 wouldn't be refuted lol.

Avatar of Rick56

I've seen this before.. Some of this advice like "doing nothing" will be taken in by many people, and they'll end up saying it's Obama's fault.

Avatar of ajmeroski

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer?pid=14380&side=white

Avatar of Ricardo_Morro

1. d4 is better than 1. e4 because the Queen's Gambit is better than the King's Gambit.

Avatar of bastiaan

@ricardo_morro: exactly!

@ajian: I feel very comfortable with the dragon and rarely get crushed because of it

Avatar of pfren
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.


Indeed, it was refuted again yesterday.

Avatar of blake78613
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.


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!"

Avatar of pfren

Bobby never met a strong opponent on the white side of a Dragon, excluding a game against Larsen in Portoroz izt 1958, where the Dane blundered as early as move 15. And it was not all the time plain sailing for him.

 

He obvously fecked it bigtime here, although Black was a clear tempo down over regular Dragon positions. Maybe this means the Dragon is a mutual zugzwang?  Tongue out

 Apparently the new Dragon super slayer got envy of a hilarious thread opened here some time ago...

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/sicilian-dragon-refuted

Avatar of blake78613

You have to admire uhohspaghettio's resilience.  He makes an absurd statement, gets flattened, and bounces right back up with another absurd statement.