Why did you go from 1.e4 to 1.d4?

I couldn't have said it better.  I'm currently playing 1. f4.  If i were to meet a 2100 otb, for instance, there is no way in creation I would consider 1. e4.  It's a guarantee he's more "booked up" than I am, and will have a better understanding of any position that arises, to be sure. 

But 1. f4 gives me a fighting chance.  It's easy, its straight forward, and there isn't a whole lot of information on it in the ECO.  But that's currently.  I originally did switch to 1. d4. Mostly Alekhine's influence, and the fact that it just works better with the way I think, or something. No, there aren't necessarily as many "quick kills" or what have you, but by the time one hits 1800 and is playing against decent opponents, those fall by the wayside anyhow, for the most part. 

I moved from e4 to d4 to avoid sicilian defense. I have liitle knowledge in opening theory. Looks like lots of people know the in-depth detail and traps in sicilian defense.

I play both 1 e4 and 1 d4 .  I added 1 d4 to my white repertoire partly because my wife plays only 1 d4 and through my work with her I was " poisoned " !  However, GM Spraggett and I are friends and he knows me, and my chess, very well and he once made the observation to me that he believes my style of play is more suited to 1 d4 openings and after that little "nudge" I added 1 d4 to my bag of tricks and havent regretted it yet.  I do still play 1 e4 as well though.

I switched because there were too many things black could do.

My least favourites were when they played: The dragon and The French.

 I find playing 1 d4 that I meet a wider variety of responses than when playing 1 e4 . If I play 1 e4 fully half of my games will be sicilians , with some french, caro kann and 1....e5 and few others but 90% will be one of those openings. With 1 d4 I find nothing is as popular as the sicilian. I see benonis, benko gambits, kid, gruenfeld, QGA, QGD, Dutch, slav and semi-slav ...

True but I still think you need to know your theory on all other reponses anyway as a 1.e4 player because if they decide not to play the sicilian you might get toasted otherwise.

I still have the feeling that I am also more in control of which lines we go into on many of the black 1.d4 reponses.

In the open games there are just so many alternatives for black to stir up trouble.

That, too, is true. It is a drawish line that gives Black equality too easily and too early, and it frustrates ambitious French players that find they must switch to the Sicilian against weaker opposition, or when they must keep their winning chances alive.

But Reb, it's not really fair to put ALL of the Sicilians into the same bucket. Some of them are really separate openings. Unless you play one of the anti-sicilians like 2.c3 or the closed Sicilian.

I switched from 1.e4 to 1.d4 because at the scholastic level nobody knows anything about 1.d4. Also why I play the Caro-Kann. Turns out that they fit my style well -- but is that because I played them for years or because I got lucky? Hmm?

I wanted to enjoy chess less.

A mouseslip?

Many fans of the French Exchange variation, such as myself  find it strange that it should be described as drawish by many people (who clearly do not play it, probably thinking that it is too drawish). For those who do play it to win, however:

Rest assured that this is not at all drawish... :D

Objectively speaking, of course, White is probably no better here, but he has:

1.Avoided any heavily theoretical lines of the French, and possibly home preparation

2.A nice psychological edge, in that the French player would not expect this kind of position to develop, and often would feel uncomfortable in such an open position.

Opening choices grounded in such concrete analysis of the position often prevail. Bravo.

For an alternative view, you might want to examine "French Defense!"

"A lot of French players dread the Exchange Variation because they like to win and it seems drawish on first glance. John Watson disputes this assessment. He shows that Black easily creates imbalances that can lead to victory for the second player, and dispense a little venom for aficionados of the White side."

I agree with you, Reb.  I see a lot more responses from 1.d4 than 1.e4.  That's one of the reasons why I like to play 1.c4.  I tend to get positions I'm comfortable in, and black's set-ups take on only a few different configurations regularly. 

Good practical win   Ziryab; though one is curious as to whether your opponent was seeking a draw to begin with?

I picked up on 1. d4 when i was a beginner, before i even started playing seriously. (mainly because everyone in my school loved to attempt the scholars mate.) but even when i started playing seriously i never really tried 1. e4 because somehow i always get forked between my king and h1 rook.(i happens EVERY time i swear haha.) i prefer offbeat openings like 1.b4 and 1.f4 but my main line openings always revolve around 1. d4 as white. as for my opening repetoire for black is either the scandanavian (1. e4 d5) or the dutch defense. i just never could get the hang of the sharp play with the simple 1. e4 e5, it just never appealed to me really.

Playing 4.c4 against the French Exchange might be a good idea if you already know a lot about the Panov-Botvinnik attack (like I do). So you just have to learn a little bit about the resulting positions and you'll be good. In fact, if black responds ...c6 and you play cxd5 cxd5 then you transpose directly into the Panov.

This variation reminds me of when I play 4.Bd2 against the Nimzo-Indian.
(1. d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Bd2)

It's not the world's greatest move but it's okay. And if I'm rated 2200 and my opponent is rated 1900 then I'll win a lot more often than not. It all depends on whether I think that playing into book helps me or hurts me.

 I still stick to e4!

I have recently returned to chess after neglecting it for several years.  I made the choice at that point to switch to 1d4 (although I was not strictly 1e4 before that).  In general, i find the openings a bit less sharp and a bit more tolerant of transpositions.  Basically I didn't want to have to dive to deeply into the Scicilian or the Spanish.  I don't truely know if there is "less" d4 theory, or if it just feels psycologically like more comfortable territory.  I always felt a little  intimitadated by those e4 defences, so I suppose I am in a better mindset with d4 systems.

Hi guys,

I started playing 1) d4 when I got so tired of playing the Silcilian Defense. 

Watch your back rank.