1. d4 is better than e4 any day, for a start 1. e4 puts a pawn en prise and 'loose pieces lose games!' whereas the d pawn is well supported by the white queen. 1. e4 contains openings such as the petroffs, exchange French, caro kann and the berlin wall, and even the sharp lines such as the marshall are very drawish because both sides bash out 25 moves of theory before going to the bar. So if your in the mood for a quick draw then 1. e4 certainly is the move for you, but I can postpone the drinking for a bit longer and play 1. d4!! which leads to sharp imbalanced games, which ranges from fighting against a tirade of black pawns in the semi slav, trying to steamroller black with a strong pawn centre in the grunfeld, and fending off a mating attack in the kings indian! People moan about the Nimzo Indian but I play it from the black side and although I have good succsess with it, it is by no means a refutation of 1. d4 because white can play 4. qc2 followed by 0-0-0 and a pawn storm, paving the way for an interesting struggle. Either way 1. d4 guarentees an interesting sharp game with a wide range of interesting positions whereas 1. e4 is just 30 moves of theory and a draw.
why d4 is better than e4
e4 is easier , better , and complicated than d4
'loose pieces lose games!'
Spoken like a true timid d4 player.
As an e4 player I say to this: 'Put your pieces on their best squares'.
'loose pieces lose games!'
Spoken like a true timid d4 player.
As an e4 player I say to this: 'Put your pieces on their best squares'.
Unfortunately, in 1.e4 games, like Maroczy Binds and Ruy Lopez games, it still looks like you're in an early middlegame by move 30-40. Probably because in 1.e4 openings, White can't find the best squares for his pieces. For example: Nb1-d2-f1-g3 in the Italian.
Rather, it is you, who is the timid player.
Sorry, I don't learn book theory on how to draw with white. I like to calculate interesting combinations soon and 1.e4 is the best way to do so. Unprotected pieces can both be a liability as an asset to your position. So for the particular reason not considering a move because your piece might not be protected is silly and timid indeed.
Which is a characteristic which might work for some, but I doubt you'll get better in chess with it if you never try some funky stuff because you are afraid of unprotected pieces 
.
You won't get any better by blundering pieces and hoping the blunders will prove being sacrifices in the long run, though...
Sorry, I don't learn book theory on how to draw with white. I like to calculate interesting combinations soon and 1.e4 is the best way to do so. Unprotected pieces can both be a liability as an asset to your position. So for the particular reason not considering a move because your piece might not be protected is silly and timid indeed.
Which is a characteristic which might work for some, but I doubt you'll get better in chess with it if you never try some funky stuff because you are afraid of unprotected pieces .
your pieces cannot be put in good places because you're going to be struggling to guard your loose pawns
e4 allows two pieces to develop. d4 allows one piece to develop.
QED.
It is amazing that we so often see such extremely naive statements in various forums. This is a complete beginner's view, someone sharing his little "knowledge" with the world.
Do I have to spell it out for you: only after 20+ moves (in millions of top-level games) can we even begin to think about a scientific comparison of the relative merits of the two systems. "Systems".
I now expect at least five silly counterattacks on this view. But I am right, we all know it.
1. e4 does not put material en prise.
What piece is attacking it?
Huh?
... No comment....
1.e4!!! is best. I won't go into the long variations here, but white has a forced mate in 104.
First, 1. e4!!! isnt even notation. Next, how in the world does WHITE HAVE A MATE IN 104? I doubt you could be in the middlegame by then. More likely, we're playing Philidor and Lucena positions- even IF we even get that far.
Lets see the line,gmt.
That barely occurs at all.
Why did you resign? He's just placing your bishop in en prise, that's all. Oh, I got the sequence: 1. Bb3 Qb4 but your bishop's protected.
how many times is 1.Nh3 played ?
Among beginner's games. :)
1. d4 is better than e4 any day, for a start 1. e4 puts a pawn en prise and 'loose pieces lose games!' whereas the d pawn is well supported by the white queen. 1. e4 contains openings such as the petroffs, exchange French, caro kann and the berlin wall, and even the sharp lines such as the marshall are very drawish because both sides bash out 25 moves of theory before going to the bar. So if your in the mood for a quick draw then 1. e4 certainly is the move for you, but I can postpone the drinking for a bit longer and play 1. d4!! which leads to sharp imbalanced games, which ranges from fighting against a tirade of black pawns in the semi slav, trying to steamroller black with a strong pawn centre in the grunfeld, and fending off a mating attack in the kings indian! People moan about the Nimzo Indian but I play it from the black side and although I have good succsess with it, it is by no means a refutation of 1. d4 because white can play 4. qc2 followed by 0-0-0 and a pawn storm, paving the way for an interesting struggle. Either way 1. d4 guarentees an interesting sharp game with a wide range of interesting positions whereas 1. e4 is just 30 moves of theory and a draw.
Somebody needs to tell this to Bobby Fisher .... I understand he lost a lot of tournaments playing e4.
Curiously, as Johann Maelzel has demonstrated, 1.a4 fails to 1...h6! and 1.h3 fails to......you guessed it, 1...a5!
He also invented the metronome... but who's keeping time?
1. d4 is better than e4 any day, for a start 1. e4 puts a pawn en prise and 'loose pieces lose games!' whereas the d pawn is well supported by the white queen. 1. e4 contains openings such as the petroffs, exchange French, caro kann and the berlin wall, and even the sharp lines such as the marshall are very drawish because both sides bash out 25 moves of theory before going to the bar. So if your in the mood for a quick draw then 1. e4 certainly is the move for you, but I can postpone the drinking for a bit longer and play 1. d4!! which leads to sharp imbalanced games, which ranges from fighting against a tirade of black pawns in the semi slav, trying to steamroller black with a strong pawn centre in the grunfeld, and fending off a mating attack in the kings indian! People moan about the Nimzo Indian but I play it from the black side and although I have good succsess with it, it is by no means a refutation of 1. d4 because white can play 4. qc2 followed by 0-0-0 and a pawn storm, paving the way for an interesting struggle. Either way 1. d4 guarentees an interesting sharp game with a wide range of interesting positions whereas 1. e4 is just 30 moves of theory and a draw.
Somebody needs to tell this to Bobby Fisher .... I understand he lost a lot of tournaments playing e4.
and he's also dead.... d4 and he may still be with us. RIP Bobby.
1.e4!!! is best. I won't go into the long variations here, but white has a forced mate in 104.
First, 1. e4!!! isnt even notation. Next, how in the world does WHITE HAVE A MATE IN 104? I doubt you could be in the middlegame by then. More likely, we're playing Philidor and Lucena positions- even IF we even get that far.
Lets see the line,gmt.
I would like to apologize for my earlier post. I made the obviously ridiculous comment above with the sole intention of injecting a bit of humor into the thread. If my attempt at jocularity has caused anyone any grief or heartache at all, then I am truly sorry.
Either way, 1.d4 also has deal with nasty defenses. I hear 1.d4 players usually hate the Nimzo and will actually avoid it.
I don't mind the Nimzo-Indian. White has plenty of options ranging from the solid 4.e3 to the aggressive, expansionist 4.f3!
Black has many aggressive options against 1.d4 too, such as the Grunfeld, the Dutch and the Noteboom Slav, and these are openings that I enjoy playing against. I used to play 1.e4 years back (and when I did, it was followed by a quick f2-f4, not Ng1-f3?? blocking in the f-pawn and leading to a theoretically drawish game but even then it never satisfied me. 1.d4 has always suited me.