Why was 1.e4 so popular at the recent candidates tournament?

I think that arguing that one first move is better than the other is a bit pointless when it is pretty much established that both e4 and d4 are the same. Using some crazy guy's name who despised the soviets and their play style (therefore having some of his own biases on the topic) to argue that e4 is best and that d4 is drawish is a bit silly.

If a strong bot performs better on 1.e4 against humans it seems more logical to me to play 1.e4 to work on the opening with the help of a strong bot.

Referring to one of the three undisputed best chess players of all time as "some crazy guy who despised the Soviets" on a chess-specific issue to try and defame his opinion is far FAR sillier than using aforementioned top 3 all-time chess player's opinion on said chess-specific issue.

Especially when you preface that statement with your own opinion on the matter. Personally, I'm going to trust the guy who played almost exclusively e4 and was rated 125 points higher than second best. But maybe that's just me.

I'm siding with NicholasOssine on this one. IMO respectfully..... I believe you're getting lost in the weeds with tactical vs positional where 1.e4 has more open games, hence tactical... and 1.d4 has more closed games, hence positional.

A loss is a loss... a draw is a draw... regardless of the above.  There is no basis in any logic for someone to make the claim 1.d4 leads to more draws than 1.e4. 

Did we forget about the Petroff, The Ruy lopez Berlin var, the Ruy lopez Exchange, the French Exchange, the Classical var of the Caro-Kann, the Four Knights var,

Fisher's style was tactical... of course he would make a statement like that. Capablanca given he was a positional player... probably would have made the exact opposite

@24

"any logic for someone to make the claim 1.d4 leads to more draws than 1.e4."
++ There is plenty of logic.

1. After 1 e4 white can follow up with d4, while after 1 d4 black can prevent follow up with e4.
2. 1 e4 creates 2 more legal moves than 1 d4
3. 1 e4 prepares O-O
4. 1 e4 prevents 1...Nf6, while 1 d4 allows it

"the Petroff" ++ Pretty sharp, ask Nepomniachtchi
"The Ruy lopez Berlin var" ++ Unbalanced: bishop's pair vs. pawn structure
"the Ruy lopez Exchange" ++ Played by Fischer himself to win.
"the French Exchange" ++ Played 3 times in the 2024 Toronto Candidates': 2 draws and 1 win, "the Classical var of the Caro-Kann" ++ Sharp
"the Four Knights var" ++ Sharp

"Fisher's style was tactical" ++ No, Fischer's style was universal
"Capablanca given he was a positional player" ++ Capablanca opened 1 e4 (261 games) more than 1 d4 (207 games)

@19

"it's hard to say that the better chess player lost in a 34 game match"
++ 'It is not enough to be a good player... you must also play well' - Tarrasch
Capablanca suffered unnecessary losses and missed wins in games 17, 27, 31.
Rumour is that he was womanising and drinking during the match.

@20

"ignore that guy"
++ Ignore a 1020 rated guy.

First of all, I never made any assumptions about the types of positions e4 vs d4 tend to end up in, but that's a more interesting conversation than watching yet another random rag on Fischer.

Since chess is ultimately a draw, all that matters is options. A position is good if you limit your opponent's options while keeping yours open, with slightly more importance placed on keeping yours open. The top 4's always been e4 d4 c4 Nf3 in any order depending on person. These days I put Nf3 on top, followed by e4, followed by d4, followed by c4.

1. e4 leads to the French, Caro, Sicilian, or Open on move 1; everything else is a noticeable step down. White then gets to choose what variation will be played, for the most part. In the Sicilian and Open, Black has just enough room to choose between Nc6, e6, or d6 Sicilians and Petroff, Philidor, or Normal if White plays for a mainline, but even in those White can just... not play 2. Nf3 and then once again it's up to White to choose the opening.

1. d4 leads to the Indian or the Closed on move 1; everything else is either a noticeable step down or allows transposition to an e4 defense. Unlike in e4, Black tends to take the lead in choosing what opening is being played. Black can play the Tarrasch, Semi-Slav, QGD, QGA, Slav, KID, Benoni, Benko, Grunfeld/Neo-Grunfeld, and NID/BID. That's a lot of options.

1. c4 has the least options for both players. Objectively best is 1... e5, but only slightly worse are the Anglo-Indian, Symmetrical, Great Snake, Agincourt, and Caro-Kann Defensive System. Black can force a Reversed Sicilian, and White simply has to accept that.

1. Nf3 has the most options for both players. Essentially everything is on the table, barring the Open Game and Nimzo-Indian, two of Black's strongest openings in all of chess, and White can also sidestep the Sicilian and the various Queen's Gambits, thereby removing ANOTHER two of Black's largest theoretical monsters. Of course, White hasn't found the solution to chess, as the less White commits to classical openings, the less advantage there is to be found once the opening is set in stone.

I see a degree in Selective Reasoning in your future.

I'm not trying to defame Fischer at all. All I'm saying is that Fischer had his own biases at the time. With all the Soviets playing d4, Fischer wanted to stand out from that, fighting the Soviets with the less played e4. Playing e4 became more of a political symbol, a sort of rebellion if you will. It's important to understand that to Fischer e4 vs d4 was not a decision made objectively on the strength of each move. It's also important to note that no other player of Fischer's caliber makes such a bold claim of one first move being better than the other, because that is simply not the case.

Same. The Alekhine-Capablanca WC was a dream match for QGD players to study. Pure QGD joy.

It was my bread and butter when I was first learned the defense.

A simple check in the Master's database will easily debunk all your claims.

e4 - 33% White, 43% Draw, 25% Black

d4 - 33% White, 44% Draw, 23% Black

Nf3 - 34% White, 44% Draw, 23% Black

c4 - 34% White, 43% Draw, 23% Black

g3 - 36% White, 39% Draw, 25% Black

As you can see, the five most popular first moves for white are virtually the same (particularly e4, d4, and Nf3). All openings in chess can be considered sharp and all openings having their drawish lines.

Arguing that e4 is better with a small list is also a bit futile (particularly arguing that e4 opens up the diagonal for the queen??? since when is going to h5 game changing???). I could do the same:

d4:

- Prevents e5 from black.

- Central pawn is already defended by queen.

- Opens dark-squared bishop.

- White can castle queenside or keep their king in the centre because they have not developed their kingside yet, leading to a more decisive game.

Not saying which one is better but me and a friend of mine made an experiment in lichess and since there is an e4/d4 debate here I'll quickly post the results. We took a 500 rated account and reached 1600 (below 1600 is something like 93+% of the players in this very website). We played 100 white games starting with e4 and 100 games starting d4. For every game with e4, the next was with d4, and vice versa so as to play at each level scale equal times with each one. Let's start

From 100 e4 games 25 were e5 (and from those only 5 were petrovs mostly at higher levels), 22 were sicilians (mostly najdorfs), 21 were caro kann, 10 were French defense (2 of them winawer because we allowed it by playing nc3), 5 were modern/pircs, 10 were Scandinavians and the others were garbage moves. So an e4 player has to be ready for e5 (spanish/italians and petrovs), caro kann, french, all kinds of Sicilians, scandi and moderns.

For d4: out of 100 games, 60/100 were d5 (and from those 40 were QGD (all normal lines as we opted for the exchange, also no tarrash), 13 were slavs/semi slavs and 7 were queens gambit accepted). 12 games were nimzo, 8 games were englund gambit 😂😂, 10 were king's indians, 1 was grunfeld, 3 benonis and the others were random moves.

So a d4 player has to basically know how to play a queen's gambit (declined or accepted, also the exchange that we played, cuts down a lot of theory plus has straightforward plans), has to know slav defense handling, a nimzo line (we opted for the 4.f3 line), and a line against king's indian. I'd say way way less theory than an e4 player. Of course the results might vary climbing the levels but up to 1600 means probably 90-95% of people playing here.

So don't argue which is better, play what you like and what is more convenient

Cause is different

@32

"A simple check in the Master's database"
++ The original post was about the Candidates' Tournament, i.e. 2700+ level.
The 'Master's database' contains more games around 2200 and even contains rapid and blitz.
At lower levels and in fast time controls the opening does not matter at all.

@32

"Opens dark-squared bishop." ++ Less useful than light-square bishop.
Besides white usually closes the diagonal right away with e3.

"White can castle queenside" ++ Takes one more move. Requires a premature queen move. Requires an additional king move to the b-file for king safety.

@32

"arguing that e4 opens up the diagonal for the queen"
++ Qe2 is often played in the Caro-Kann, Qf3 is often played in the Sicilian,
Qg4 is often played in the French, Qh5 is often played in the Italian.
On the contrary Qd2 or Qd3 are far less played in d4 openings.

@30

"no other player of Fischer's caliber makes such a bold claim"
++ The present top players implicitly concur with the claim,
not by what they say, but what they play.
2024 Candidates: 39 games 1 e4, 17 games other
2022 Candidates: 38 games 1 e4, 18 games other