Seems harder to force a draw against 1.d4 than against 1.e4. 1.e4 is a good move but at super GM level generating winning chances against the Petroff is implied to be very difficult both according to the stats and the GMs themselves.
Why is d4 so often chosen in the world championships?
Sort:
Well, last world champion match Carlsen played 1.e4 six time and winning three games; two of them was the Ruy Lopez, Berlin variation. So, no, Berlin is like any defense beatable and Carlsen was very confident he can beat Anand with 1.e4. Ivanchuck was playing Carlsen and obtain an easy draw with " 1.d4". 1.d4 and 1.e4 are good first moves, Carlsen prove you can win with 1.e4.
TheGreatOogieBoogie
Seems harder to force a draw against 1.d4 than against 1.e4. 1.e4 is a good move but at super GM level generating winning chances against the Petroff is implied to be very difficult both according to the stats and the GMs themselves.
Ivanchuck prove you can achieve a draw when you playing against Carlsen with 1.d4 but lost to Wesley So with 1.e4. So Ivanchuck might disagree with you, 1.d4 is a safe first move when you need a draw, not like the tactical and dangerous first move 1.e4! I will like to add, Wesley drew twice against Carlsen, you guess it that silly 1.d4, no bite at all, hard to play for a win when you opponent doesn't give you any weaknesses. Maybe next time Carlsen should play 1.e4 against So, he might win. 
But 1.d4 has so much pent up latent energy and has strategically rich possibilities. So can many 1.e4 openings but with 1.d4 you get a whole different feel and the Botvinnik variation of the Slav is especially sharp, QGA can also lead to some interesting play. Then you have the KID where both sides play on their sides, white wants to exchange lightsquared bishops if possible (it coordinates with the kingside pawn storm) and make black delay his attacking plans. Then you have Bolslavsky Wall variations with the exposed d6 pawn, where both sides can get in some good and interesting play.
1.e4 stuff feels more rigid and less margin of error. 1.e4 and 1.d4 are both great choices but at super GM level they mastered chess to such a strong degree that 1.d4 seems like the better option for generating winning chances with white.
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
But 1.d4 has so much pent up latent energy and has strategically rich possibilities. So can many 1.e4 openings but with 1.d4 you get a whole different feel and the Botvinnik variation of the Slav is especially sharp, QGA can also lead to some interesting play. Then you have the KID where both sides play on their sides, white wants to exchange lightsquared bishops if possible (it coordinates with the kingside pawn storm) and make black delay his attacking plans. Then you have Bolslavsky Wall variations with the exposed d6 pawn, where both sides can get in some good and interesting play.
1.e4 stuff feels more rigid and less margin of error. 1.e4 and 1.d4 are both great choices but at super GM level they mastered chess to such a strong degree that 1.d4 seems like the better option for generating winning chances with white.
In the very high level 1.d4 lack the aggressiveness that is needed for a win. I give you two games of Carlsen, one is So and the other is Ivanchuck, both ended in a easy draw and no fireworks or tactical mayham.
Ivanchuck was one hundred and fifty rated pointed lower and was able to draw Carlsen easily and Wesley had a confortable draw. You can't do this with 1.e4, it is too sharp and dangerous, you have to play accurate to have a playable game; maybe that is why Fischer, Shirov, Morozevich, Short, Adams and Kasparov are so dangerous with 1.e4.
Aug 24, 2015
0
#67
Yuree, I'm sure you know that your comments about 1.d4 are ridiculous, so I have to wonder what your deeper point is.
SmyslovFan, it is not ridiculous at all! Why Carlsen played 1.e4 all six white against Anand in their match? Why not 1.d4? You see Ivanchuck had a easy draw against Carlsen and So was able to draw against Carlsen; Carlsen should play something sharp against So, like 1.e4! So is no fool, he play the safe and dull English and drew Carlsen.
super grandmasters tend to play 1.d4 because it's a more positional approach qnd they.want to risk too much by playing 1.e4
Aug 24, 2015
0
#70
It just looks to me like the higher rated player like d4 far more then lower rated players. All I know is about 15 yrs ago I switch from e4 to d4 spent the time to learn the main d4 openings I think the Queen's Gambit was my first really studied d4 opening. I'm the SA in the biggest 1.d4 group here on Chess.com so I guess I'm a bit biased. :) Cheers all
Aug 25, 2015
0
#71
Commander_Riker wrote:
It just looks to me like the higher rated player like d4 far more then lower rated players. All I know is about 15 yrs ago I switch from e4 to d4 spent the time to learn the main d4 openings I think the Queen's Gambit was my first really studied d4 opening. I'm the SA in the biggest 1.d4 group here on Chess.com so I guess I'm a bit biased. :) Cheers all
So? How did it work out for you? Did 1.d4 make you a better chess player? Do you still use 1.e4 at all? Do you really think 1.d4 is the better opening? If only for you? Would you ever go back to 1.e4?
Commander_Riker wrote:
It just looks to me like the higher rated player like d4 far more then lower rated players. All I know is about 15 yrs ago I switch from e4 to d4 spent the time to learn the main d4 openings I think the Queen's Gambit was my first really studied d4 opening. I'm the SA in the biggest 1.d4 group here on Chess.com so I guess I'm a bit biased. :) Cheers all
Riker, I knew from my chess club who are experts and masters and have played 1.e4 all the time, in fact one the expert has in license plate 1.e4 c5; tactical players will for most part play 1.e4 and positional playes have the safe 1.d4 . It depends on chess style that is all. Both first moves are perferctly good. There is one master I know who is 2380 uscf and he is very tactical player and a lot of his games don't go beyond 25 moves, it is nice to rest in a tournament and not go into a long endgame; a short game is better.
The OP made a mistake, last world champion match Carlsen played mostly 1.e4. Ex-World champions, Alekhine, Tal, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Anand and Kasparov were rely on 1.e4 to win their games. Kasparov had to quit playing 1.d4 against Karpov because he a better chance to win with 1.e4. The question is why did Carlsen did not play 1.d4 against Anand? Magnus did play it once in their first match on fifth game but afterward never played 1.d4 again. I bet no one is going to answer that simple question, why Carlsen not play 1.d4 in his match with Anand.
Aug 27, 2015
0
#74
Yes.
But I notice Carlsen gets an opening advantage with the white pieces far less than other top GGM's. for all his strengths, opening prep isn't one of them.
It just looks to me like the higher rated player like d4 far more then lower rated players.
Riker: I believe the statistics are solidly on your side.
It's not hard to figure. Almost all players start with 1.e4 and most of them will stick with e4 through inertia. You have to play a while and have a certain amount of ambition to expand or switch to 1.d4.
But what goes on with the first move at the World Championship level depends much more on specific issues based on the particular match players and current opening theory.
Can't we all agree that they're both great moves? You can't avoid the Petroff or Poisoned Pawn with 1.e4. You can try some offbeat sidelines, but why give black easy equality?
Natural selection.
True, there are lots of WCC hopefuls out there, who play 1.e4. But bing a hopeful isn't enough. To become a WCC contender, you have to beat the best. And only 1.d4 players can do that!