Why is d4 better?

Hello,

Does anyone know why 1. d4 does better than 1. e4 statistically?

Thanks

Its your move,

Justin Torres

1. The Sicilian is strong

2.Berlin and Petrov are hard openings too crack

@kenji12, True, Wikipedia did say that it was due in part to the Sicilian.

@Estragon, True. For me, I want the opening that will give the best chances for me to win, and the least for my opponent. I am willing to change what I am "comfortable" playing to do this. See, people are comfortable because they know an opening. Well, I am ready to learn any opening I need!

Basically, I am comfortable with any opening, I don't want to limit myslef. That said, in a normal situation, given that I studied lets say all openings, and my opponets has too, (aka Magnus Carlson vs. Lev Aronion) what gives me best chances?

Is it?

check out these games from a recent super GM tournament:

http://www.chess.com/news/bilbao-set-for-a-thrilling-finish-1683

http://www.chess.com/news/magnus-carlsen-wins-the-chess-masters-final-6837

Q: Why is d4 better

A: d4 isnt better!

Problem solved, next one

Statistically, 1.c3 is best.

Why do you think that one is better than the other?

Looking at my database which goes to 2010, I took a peek at all GM vs. GM  (2600 vs. 2600) games, from 2001 - 2010. 

I found that there were 10559 1.e4 games and 9427 1.d4 games.

Stats from these are

1.e4 46% of the games are decisive with white scoring 55%.

1.d4 44% of the games are decisive with white scoring 55%.

So if you were the absolute "average" 2600 rated GM in this example and you played 2000 games, 1000 with 1.e4 and 1000 with 1.d4 you would score.

1.e4: 523 points vs. 513 for your opponents.

1d4. 522 points vs. 478 for your opponents.

So how do you determine which is better?  e4 is ahead with 1 more point than d4, but a d4 repertoire will lead to you losing less.

I don't it matters much for us mere mortals.

BTW if I look at the last five years its 6742 1.e4 games vs. 6309 1.d4 games. So GM's seem to be split failry evenly on which is best.

Thank you very much. This is exactly what I found with my database. e4 wins the slightest bit more, but d4 takes away blacks chances by a lot. Pointwise, d4 is winning.

I know that.

The question is, everybody, why? Why does d4 have that advantage?

It's not hanging if nothing is attacking it.

A non-protected piece that is not under attack is called "loose" not "hanging".

No wonder I've been loosing!

The truth is, nobody really knows if it is "ultimately" better...

Going back to my post in this thread -- If d4 were "unanimously" better, I'd bet that Fischer and Carlsen wouldn't have used e4 against top players.

Another example of "science" trying to solve something that has no true answer.

howcan sbcompare 1.d4 to 1.e4?it's like comparing apples to oranges!!!the first gives a closed or semi closed game while the other open or semi open games....

Hans Berliner, the former World Champion in correspondence chess (before the advent of computers), argued that 1.d4 is objectively the best move in his weird book, The System (not to be confused with Nimzovich's classic, My System.)

His basic argument is

a) the d-pawn is a central pawn thrust that grabs space in the center without needing more moves to defend it since the Q is already defending it

b) It opens up lines on the dark squares

c) the Queen's Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.c4) is more playable than the King's Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4) because the Q gets active whereas the King is a liability in the opening. Since the Queen's gambit is so good, 1.d4 is better than 1.e4.

For me, the main reason I prefer 1.d4 is that the positions are often more complex than 1.e4 lines. 1.e4 e5 tends to lead to open positions where the pawns in the center are traded off. Once the position is opened up, it's almost impossible to close it again.

1.d4 usually defers opening the center, creating more tension in the position. That makes the positions more difficult to play and gives the better player more chances to win.

Of course, 1.e4 is also a fine opening.

how can so many people keep missing the point of the original post???? he is not saying d4 is empircally a better first move than e4, he is asking why it performs better statistically.....

The reason it performs better statistically is due to many reasons:

1. e4 has been more established and well known for hundreds of years longer than d4, which while played occasionally prior and viewed as unorthodox, didn't really make a regular appearance in the tournament scene until the second half of the 19th century.

2. The Sicilian Defense does put a dent in the statistics not because the Sicilian is that much better than all other openings from a theoretical standpoint, which really 1...e5 is boss when it comes to theory, but the Sicilian leaves more room for error by White, and so it has a higher win ratio.  If you play 1000 games, win 200 of them, lose 230 of them, and draw the other 570, your statistical percentage is better than if you win 20 games and lose 60 games, drawing the other 920 with 1...e5, but the latter is more sound.  Your King remains standing 940 times out of 1000 instead of 770 times (Numbers purely random).

3. It is harder for Black to counter-attack 1.d4.  He can claim his share of the center with 1...d5, like he does with 1...e5 against 1.e4, but as mentioned prior, the fact that e4 is a loose pawn and d4 is not gives Black more opportunities at counterplay as opposed to a shear claim of his share of space.  It is for this reason that you see GMs playing far more hypermodern defenses to 1.d4 (i.e. Nimzo-Indian, Queen's Indian, King's Indian, Benko, Benoni, Leningrad Dutch, etc.) than you do against 1.e4 (i.e. Alekhine, Pirc, etc.).  He has nothing concrete to latch on to against 1.d4, other than controlling and preventing e4, which is why 1...d5, 1...Nf6, and 1...f5 are better than say, 1...a6.  Thought is, If I can't attack you directly, I'll lure you to over-extend and come to papa, and only then, break down your center, collect the loose pawns, and win!

4. The strongest players play both.  Kasparov played both.  Carlsen plays both.  Fischer was a bum.  His "1.e4, best by test" is wrong!  Maybe best in his book, but has anybody seen a number of Fischer's Games against the French?  They aren't pretty!

My first tournament was a below 1600 one with alot of kids. I noticed that all of the kids rated around 15-1600 were playing e4, going into fast tactics or traps they've learned and simply calculated better than their opponent. 
When I started playing chess this was my weapon aswell but recently I started looking at piece activity and weaknesses. Positional things really. 
Soo I used d4 against my opponents and e6 as black, cus everyone used e4, and had great success! Scoring 7/8 winning all of the standard time controls 90+30sec and drawing two 20 minutes rapids.
Soo when playing kids, d4 is really the way to go. They can't play without tactics.