Why do people hate "d4" so much?

I think 1. B4 is the best

ThrillerFan wrote:

thiskid1 wrote:

d4 is for positional players and e4 is for tactical players

I don't think I have ever seen a more incorrect statement about chess than this one.

I have played both 1.e4 and 1.d4 in he last 3 months alone, and I play a very positional game.

With 1.e4, you can play a positonal or tactical repertoire. 

For instance, against the Sicilian, a tactican should play the Open Sicilian, a positional play can follow Spassky with the Closed.

Against the French, an agressive tactician can play 3.Nc3 while a positional player can go for the Advance Variation.

As Black, anybody can play the Sicilian.  Leave the Dragon for your Tacticians while the Taimanov or Kan should be reserved for your positional players.

Many 1.d4 lines lead to extreme tactical play.  King's Indian Four Pawns Attack, Leningrad Dutch, Benoni, and the Semi-Slav are all full of tactics.

You can easily form a positional or tactical repertoire with either 1.e4 or 1.d4.

That is what my chess teacher said and he is rated 2000

I hate 1.d4 because many players then play 2.e3 3. c3, 4.Bf4 , etc  bored systems, solid but bored without imagination. 

Against 1.d4 i play the magic  1...e5  and i am happy with the board. Englund gambit is the best system to ensure a tactic game.

I tend to think all boredom is resolved by winning.  The creation of boredom is also mentioned in  Sun Tzu's Art of War as a valid tactic for winning.  Thus, beware of the boring opponent.

So the bishop jumps over the e3 pawn ? Cool ...

Yes, but i play for fun that is my first aim . I won´t make money winnin in chess. When someone plays systems like Colle or another system where their pieces are 15-20 moves without cross the fourth line,  i  ask myself if really  these guys are playin chess .

And, one never really knows if the opponent online is human or a programmed opponent, so don't forget to play on the table at home with good chess buddies.  . . . . . Chess should retain its organic-social origins.

At lower levels (my ratings 1450 and below) people dont' like it, because they play e4 games as white , or against it as black, 99% of the time. I've been nearly undefeated pushing my way up from 1250 to 1400+ by learning a lot of d4 theory, including all of it variations (for instance I just studied the delayed Dutch defense from black to defend against d4).

So they get mad, because they dont' understand it, and it destroys every plan they had in mind from all their e4 games.

A similiar thing happened in bullet chess. I was playing 1 minute and 3 minute chess. I kept taking an extreme butt kicking, mainly because they all prepare their traps far ahead of time. After a while I played a hedgehog defense +1 tempo as white and just let them run out of time suiciding me. As black I played double fiancetto and put my knights on the Queen side with a French hybrid then queen side castled. The moment I queen side castled they resigned, simply because all of their normal plans went to waste and they wouldn't have enough time to win.

Ever since I stopped playing speed chess, since these heavy defensive strategies will let you win on time, although this probably IIS NOT the case in HIGH LEVEL speed chess, I find that I'm not learning anything at my current level of play, and am better off playing 15/30 minute games and developing more opening theory (studying the Reti opening to King's Indian or English transition at the moment).

It is a weak reply, maybe you want the Benko gambit instead? 

whenever i annotate games i mark anything other than d4 as a blunder for white

+1

I dont know why people hate on the London so much, I find my london games just as interesting as the Benko, Jaenisch, tromp or hopton games I play.
Its always interesting to see the small accumulation of mistakes black ususally makes transfer into an advantage for white, and often black has no idea why they gte bad positions.

I feel the same, I like to play againist d4-c4 but playing against the Colle or the London is just too boring. Especially the Colle tends to give black zero counterplay.

i personally hate when my opponet plays d4 since i don't get to play the sicilian which i like playing when my opponet plays d4 i have to play a more passive opening like the nimzo

You still haven't responded to my line, where black is practically winning.

In both the parham refutation thread and the 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 thread.

I myself prefer 1.d4...but I have been hearing about this "Parham Opening" so much lately, I will need to look see.

why is nf3 not agressive you are already putting a peice out on the first move? also its very flexible as well

I think if people hate 1.d4 then it is because there are very few aggressive attacking lines for black which white has to enter and positions tend to be a little bit more closed than after 1.e4. For example white can avoid sharp variations in the Kings Indian by playing with g3 and still hope to get a slight advantage. If you play 1.e4 and face Sicilians like the Najdorf (and especially the Rauzer/Classical) you typically search in the open sicilians for an advantage, which leads to very sharp play. Although I have to admit the Bb5 anti sicilians are very popular and sound also nowadays.

Has d4_or_CaroKann been here since 2012?

y u revive dead threads?