well then, he is incorrect!
Why is e4 so commonly played in the first move?
Sort:
lol
no more replies?
end of the topic?
ok.
fine.
Jun 12, 2020
0
#189
That's the 4 square mate very common in the settings of beginning and developing players
It's played by patzers who lack creativity and fear intuitive chess playing.
Well pilotoxomxd, I personally have nothing more to say or add. So I'm done from my side.
A friend who is a USCF Expert said that in his opinion. What separates Carlsen from other GM's is his ability to find/play the 2nd, or even 3rd. best move in a line. While other GM's are in search of the "perfect move" Carlsen travels the less wandered road. If this is true? Carlsen has a bit of Korchnoi in him.
f4 is one move
e6 is th second
g4 is the third
Qh4 is the fourth
#/0-1 is the fifth
I think e4 is very good
Jun 15, 2020
0
#197
e4 leads to more wild and crazier openings while d4 is a more positional way to start the game.
Jun 15, 2020
0
#198
That's wrong. e4 can lead to crazy openings, while d4 is more solid, it offers way less playstlyes. Either you play Semi-aggressively with the QG, or you play positionally with the London. e4 allows for hyper-aggressive openings, (too risky for me) like the Kings gambit, or some less aggressive attacks, (but aggressive in their own right,) like the Scotch and Fried Liver. 2 of my personal favorites. It also allows for highly if not completely theoretical openings played at the highest levels, like the Ruy Lopez. e4 is more adaptable. d4 has a set style, and if you want to play it, you have to adapt to it, or go back to e4. Nf3 is also a good move, but highly theoretical and too passive, allowing d5 and Nf6, 2 famous counters that are no available immediately afte 1. e4.
Jun 15, 2020
0
#199
PILOTOXOMXD wrote:
That's wrong. e4 can lead to crazy openings, while d4 is more solid, it offers way less playstlyes. Either you play Semi-aggressively with the QG, or you play positionally with the London. e4 allows for hyper-aggressive openings, (too risky for me) like the Kings gambit, or some less aggressive attacks, (but aggressive in their own right,) like the Scotch and Fried Liver. 2 of my personal favorites. It also allows for highly if not completely theoretical openings played at the highest levels, like the Ruy Lopez. e4 is more adaptable. d4 has a set style, and if you want to play it, you have to adapt to it, or go back to e4. Nf3 is also a good move, but highly theoretical and too passive, allowing d5 and Nf6, 2 famous counters that are no available immediately afte 1. e4.
WRONG on pretty much everything. Any opening can be "aggressive" Any opening can be "positional"
Jun 15, 2020
0
#200
PILOTOXOMXD wrote:
That's wrong. e4 can lead to crazy openings, while d4 is more solid, it offers way less playstlyes. Either you play Semi-aggressively with the QG, or you play positionally with the London. e4 allows for hyper-aggressive openings, (too risky for me) like the Kings gambit, or some less aggressive attacks, (but aggressive in their own right,) like the Scotch and Fried Liver. 2 of my personal favorites. It also allows for highly if not completely theoretical openings played at the highest levels, like the Ruy Lopez. e4 is more adaptable. d4 has a set style, and if you want to play it, you have to adapt to it, or go back to e4. Nf3 is also a good move, but highly theoretical and too passive, allowing d5 and Nf6, 2 famous counters that are no available immediately afte 1. e4.
1... Nf6 is perfectly fine for black against 1.e4. I should know; I play it.
But Prof. Ian E. Diot (phD) told me!