SeniorPatzer wrote:
Even Bobby Fischer played 1. d4 in his 1972 match against Spassky.
Nope. He played 1.c4 four times, transposing into an opening normally reached after 1.d4.
1.d4 is indeed the best first move
Sort:
If you like playing d4 better okay go ahead it is a good move but no one can prove what is the best move
Ziryab wrote:
SeniorPatzer wrote:
Even Bobby Fischer played 1. d4 in his 1972 match against Spassky.
Nope. He played 1.c4 four times, transposing into an opening normally reached after 1.d4.
Thanks for the correction, Ziryab!!
mickynj wrote:
e4 is better than d4. Chocolate is better than vanilla. Tarzan could beat Batman in a fist fight. PERIOD!!!
Okay, I could live with everything in your post. Except!! There's no way that Tarzan could beat Batman in a fist fight. Batman would kick his jungle butt black and blue. It wouldn't even be close. Batman went up to some exotic place to learn Ninja Moves and Martial Arts.
Tarzan wouldn't have a chance. He'd be crying out for Jane in 30 seconds.
mickynj wrote:
Tarzan learned martial arts from Mountain Gorillas. A Mountain Gorilla can whip any Tibetan Monk who ever lived. But your arguments are at least as good as the arguments for 1.d4
I think Lego Batman would probably be an e4 player. And Lego Superman would probably be a d4 player. And since Lego Superman gets the better of Lego Batman, then d4 is probably better than e4.
torrubirubi wrote:
The advantage of 1.c4 over 1.d4 is that most people will know even less what to do against 1.c4. I had also a lot of problems with Nimzo-Indian and against the Slav and Semi-Slav, but I know now a little bit better how to play against these defences (this is for instance my case). In the Slav I avoid the very sharp variations and I know how to get the pawn back if Black plays ...dxc4. I am still struggling to find the right move orders in all these Slav defences, as for instance the Chebanenko, the Schlechter, the Semi-Slav, the Triangle Variations, etc. In the Nimzo-Indian I develop the Queen early (5. Qc2) to avoid getting double pawns. Actually the Nimzo-Indian is a kind of gambit, although nobody call it like this, since Black is giving his bishop-pair in several lines in this defence.
I don't really have a hard time playing against these, it is more that they lead to the kind of positions I find somewhat boring personally. The advantage of 1. c4 or 1. Nf3 is that, instead of playing the usual 1. d4 lines, you can often develop in a way black does, but with extra tempo. Reti Opening, for example, is essentially the same as "Benoni for white", and 1. c4 e5 is like Sicilian with extra tempo.
1d4wins wrote:
well 1.c4 isnt as good as d4 for multiple reasons, the simplest being that black can play 1...e5 after 1.c4 where White has nothing and will probably end up in some Sicilian-like position which is what I dont want as a d4 player.
Due to the extra tempo, you have a lot of flexibility in how to play the "reverse Sicilian", and it doesn't have to be similar to one of the main usual lines.
I agree that 1. c4 is a bit weaker than 1. d4 or 1. e4, since it does much less in terms of quick development and center control - however, I doubt anyone but the best of the best chess players in the world can truly punish white for being so indecisive; 1. c4 has been played by almost all world champions at some point, so for us, mortals, it is definitely a viable option. 
May 25, 2017
0
#30
MayCaesar wrote:
I agree that 1. c4 is a bit weaker than 1. d4 or 1. e4, since it does much less in terms of quick development and center control - however, I doubt anyone but the best of the best chess players in the world can truly punish white for being so indecisive; 1. c4 has been played by almost all world champions at some point, so for us, mortals, it is definitely a viable option.
True—if we look at the great players of today and the past, many of them have played the English at some point.
Even at the current highest level of play (the Top Chess Engine Championship), 1.c4 performs quite well. I wouldn't say that the English has any inherent weaknesses.
And I agree with you: a reversed Sicilian, for most English players, is quite a joy to play, and usually the whole reason we play the English in the first place (because many of us are also Sicilian players with the black pieces). 
Nobody should ever open d4. Games that start that way are always constipated and not worth playing. I still can't understand why anybody would want to totally spoil the game from the very first move.
Yeah sure. Somebody is going to say, "because you can win." Would you let your opponent give you a cigar burn in exchange for letting you win?
Jun 4, 2017
0
#32
ebolakitty wrote:
Nobody should ever open d4. Games that start that way are always constipated and not worth playing. I still can't understand why anybody would want to totally spoil the game from the very first move.
Yeah sure. Somebody is going to say, "because you can win." Would you let your opponent give you a cigar burn in exchange for letting you win?
You are joking, right? Of course you are! I will nevertheless answer your post in the case that some beginners will perhaps take you seriously . Beginning with 1.d4 means that you have to understand much better how to play in the center then after the moves 1.e4 e5. I mean, the fight for the center after 1.d4 is more complex. This fact reveals already in the very first moves. After 1.e4 e5 most games continue with 2. Nf3. However, after 1.d4 d5 (or 1. Nf6, both moves preventing 2. e4) the move 2. Nc3 is rather rare in master chess. Since the pawn d5 is defended by the Queen, White have to play 2.c4 (or play the Cole, as Artur Yusupov and Susan Polgar often did). The nice thing about 2.c4 is that you can play this move without the risk if compared with 1.e4 e5 2.f4. The Queen's Gambit is one of the most common openings in the so-called closed games, You will definitively not spoil your game after 1.d4, believe me. But you certainly have to know what you are doing.
Jun 4, 2017
0
#33
d4 is a good move if you want a draw against a higher rated player. But it mostly depends upon the player as to which opening he/she wants to play..
1d4wins wrote:
What are you talking about? There are many good variations for white after 1.e4, just as there are many good variations after 1.d4. The desicion of which to play entirely relies on someone's so called "style of play", and preference. I personally play the London system, which is 1.d4, but that being said, a main line ruy lopez or advance French for example is just as good. Just because a move is best for you doesn't mean that it's best for everyone. This is like a doctor saying that he loves his job, so everyone should become a doctor. Doesnt that sound weird.
If you are serious about gaining the maximum chances to win a game as white you have to play 1.d4. It is by far the best for multiple reasons.
It is very dynamic, you can play sharp lines or play very safe and calm lines depending on what you want.
It is very very complex, there are a lot more choices than for example in e4 lines. Alone against the Kingsindian Defence White can choose between 10 continuations which then subdivide in multiple different ways to follow up.
It is a must play if you want a draw or equal position against a stronger player. Playing d4 allows you to get dry and equal or at least very balanced positions by force if you know how. If you play 1.e4 black can for example play the Sicilian which WILL lead to imbalanced and sharp positions which favor the better player.
With 1.d4 you can build up a repertoire with a lot of dynamics, where you can choose between different options. For example instead of always following the mainlines you can also go with the Veresov or Colle or Trompovsky. You can switch move orders in most 1.d4 variations which gives you extra options.
If you are decently booked up with White as a 1.d4-player you can not have any trouble in or after the opening.
Period.
Jun 4, 2017
0
#35
torrubirubi wrote:
Beginning with 1.d4 means that you have to understand much better how to play in the center then after the moves 1.e4 e5. I mean, the fight for the center after 1.d4 is more complex. ... you certainly have to know what you are doing.
I agree with you that 1.d4 won't spoil a game for white. It's certainly a solid opening move.
However, both 1.d4 ...d5 and 1.e4 ...e5 can get quite complex, depending on the lines. I wouldn't say either is easier (nor more difficult) than the other. Different, but still a struggle either way.
You have to know what you're doing in either of them to have a fighting chance, especially if you're facing a well-prepared opponent.
Jun 4, 2017
0
#36
BlunderLots wrote:
torrubirubi wrote:
Beginning with 1.d4 means that you have to understand much better how to play in the center then after the moves 1.e4 e5. I mean, the fight for the center after 1.d4 is more complex. ... you certainly have to know what you are doing.
I agree with you that 1.d4 won't spoil a game for white. It's certainly a solid opening move.
However, both 1.d4 ...d5 and 1.e4 ...e5 can get quite complex, depending on the lines. I wouldn't say either is easier (nor more difficult) than the other. Different, but still a struggle either way.
You have to know what you're doing in either of them to have a fighting chance, especially if you're facing a well-prepared opponent.
Actually I did not say that games beginning with 1.e4 are not complex (of course they are!). What I wrote is that the fight for the center after 1.d4 is more complex than after 1.e4.
Jun 4, 2017
0
#37
Ziryab wrote:
SeniorPatzer wrote:
Even Bobby Fischer played 1. d4 in his 1972 match against Spassky.
Nope. He played 1.c4 four times, transposing into an opening normally reached after 1.d4.
He did it the first time in Game 6.
I have never been so interested in Chess before or since.
It was front page news everywhere, and the only thing talked about.
Front page news, every day.
torrubirubi wrote:
ebolakitty wrote:
Nobody should ever open d4. Games that start that way are always constipated and not worth playing. I still can't understand why anybody would want to totally spoil the game from the very first move.
Yeah sure. Somebody is going to say, "because you can win." Would you let your opponent give you a cigar burn in exchange for letting you win?
You are joking, right? Of course you are! I will nevertheless answer your post in the case that some beginners will perhaps take you seriously . Beginning with 1.d4 means that you have to understand much better how to play in the center then after the moves 1.e4 e5. I mean, the fight for the center after 1.d4 is more complex. This fact reveals already in the very first moves. After 1.e4 e5 most games continue with 2. Nf3. However, after 1.d4 d5 (or 1. Nf6, both moves preventing 2. e4) the move 2. Nc3 is rather rare in master chess. Since the pawn d5 is defended by the Queen, White have to play 2.c4 (or play the Cole, as Artur Yusupov and Susan Polgar often did). The nice thing about 2.c4 is that you can play this move without the risk if compared with 1.e4 e5 2.f4. The Queen's Gambit is one of the most common openings in the so-called closed games, You will definitively not spoil your game after 1.d4, believe me. But you certainly have to know what you are doing.
Certainly not joking. Just look at what you are suggesting... total constipation. It's like having spinach for desert. Most people play chess for fun. Opening d4 defeats the purpose. It is better to play 20 fun moves and lose than to play 75 tedious moves and win.
I can see why chess professionals would play d4. There can be serious money at stake. There are a lot of unpleasant things that I am willing to do for money like my job. For a weekend duffer though? Why not do something more exciting like a jigsaw puzzle?
Jun 5, 2017
0
#39
I have heard some people say that 1. e4 was the strongest first move for this simple reason: The e4 square is unprotected in the starting position. After something like 1. d4 Nf6, you can no longer play e4; you have to prepare it first. So why not get e4 in while you have the chance to (in other words, on move one) rather than use up time later trying to prepare it?
Also, I believe that Bobby Fischer would genuinely disagree with the premise of this thread. In one of his books, he gave 1. e4 an exclam.
My opinion is that 1. e4 and 1. d4 are approximately equal, but if one is truly better than the other I would say it is probably 1. e4. However, these are merely my observations and preferences. From here on I will just spectate; the ongoing discussion is quite interesting.
There's a lot of reason to promote 1.d4 as a first move—it's certainly one of the best choices there is.
Though declaring 1.d4 as the best move in a "must win" situation seems like a tenuous argument at best—seeing as 1.d4 has, statistically, one of the highest draw percentages of all first moves.
In last year's World Championship match, both Carlsen and Karjakin played 1.e4 when they got down to the tie-breaker games—which we can logically conclude that, in a "must-win" situation, the strongest player in the world, and his challenger, both believe that 1.e4 gives white the best fighting chance.