1.d4 is indeed the best first move

Sort:
torrubirubi
ebolakitty wrote:
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?

Boring, constipation. Tell me, did you had bad experiences playing against 1.d4? This would explain your trauma against this move.

haxo101
1d4wins wrote:

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.   

You're entitled to your own opinion, of course (and you're clearly rated much higher than I am), but I just want to point out that the Ruy Lopez, a very strong opening which has also been called the strongest opening for White, begins 1.e4. It's the oldest opening in chess which is still frequently used.

ebolakitty
torrubirubi wrote:
Boring, constipation. Tell me, did you had bad experiences playing against 1.d4? This would explain your trauma against this move

Practically every d4 game has been traumatic. These days when I see it, I abort it. I am sick and tired of 4 rook and 16 pawn endgames. With e4 there is a better chance of making something happen like opening a file. Like I said, I play for fun. To me, d4 isn't chess. It is checkers. I don't like checkers.

torrubirubi
ebolakitty wrote:
torrubirubi wrote:
Boring, constipation. Tell me, did you had bad experiences playing against 1.d4? This would explain your trauma against this move

Practically every d4 game has been traumatic. These days when I see it, I abort it. I am sick and tired of 4 rook and 16 pawn endgames. With e4 there is a better chance of making something happen like opening a file. Like I said, I play for fun. To me, d4 isn't chess. It is checkers. I don't like checkers.

It seems to me a similar argument as some of my opponents in tennis use. I like to play tennis as playing chess, trying to find weak points in my opponent's game and use them to win the match. Young players are often crazy about the way how I play, as they feel that they do not have the control of the situation. I remember a guy who was training regularly with a very strong players, and was able to play decent tennis if the opponent was giving fast and regular balls to play. I played him twice in tournaments, he twice he did not make a single game. After the game he was disrespectful, blaming me of playing such a horrible tennis. I told him: how can you blame my way to play if you are even not able to win a simple game against me? The same apply to you: how can you blame people of playing 1.d4 if you abort every single game against this move? You should really reconsider your attitude. Just think a minute about it.

snakey77
1d4wins wrote:

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.   

 

E4 you can play sharp or safe lines too.

 

E4 is also very complex

 

It is pretty hard to lose with d4, unless you get into a queen's indian, but Sicilian is full of forced draw lines both for black and white

 

Same thing with e4 here. After e4, if black goes e5 you can go for all sort of lines, anti-marshal, regular re1 ruy lopez, d3 ruy lopez and Italian. In Sicilian there are many sidelines too, even if they aren't objectively very good. In just about every opening there are sidelines for white.

ebolakitty
1d4wins wrote:

... It is very dynamic, you can play sharp lines or play very safe and calm lines depending on what you want...

 

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.

 

 

The first post explains everything.

 

First, nobody plays the dynamic lines. I've been playing for 50 years and can count on one hand the number of wild and woolly attacks against my king that started with d4.

 

Dry and equal = constipated. I've been playing for a long time and know for sure that I hate symmetrical and closed games. Do any of you think that I haven't seen my share of them and just don't know the awesome fun that I am missing?

 

As for cowardly, what can I say? I am afraid to waste my time on a game that it is impossible to enjoy.      

RoobieRoo

1.g3!! is the best

Ashvapathi

How is d4 winning? It seems to me that d4 is a very even opening and it frequently ends up in equal endgames unless one side blunders. e4 is much better for white.

RoobieRoo

 

MickinMD
MayCaesar wrote:

I hate Sicilian and French, so I don't play 1. e4; I hate playing against Slav or Nimzo-Indian, so I don't play 1. d4. 1. c4 is where it's at!

So what do you play against 1 c4 c6?

TrentWoodruff

Since we're on the topic of d4, I can't help but ask a question I have long wanted to hear the answer to.

 

For added context, I'm much stronger with my knights than with my bishops, so I'm not opposed at all to trading a bishop for an opponent's knight if a decent opportunity presents itself.


When I am white and have the good opportunity (i.e. no obvious problems associated with the moves at the time), I will always d4, then bring the bishop out into the Mason attack (at 4), and then bring in my e4 pawn to support the bishop (sort of trapping it, but not really as I can always back to the rook's pawn position if necessary.


I have been playing this opening for probably close to 20 years, although within that 20 years, I admittedly didn't play at all for a stretch of about 15 of those <grin>).  So my question for all of you fine folks is this...what are the weaknesses of that position that I should be particularly aware of, now that I'm playing again?

 

BlunderLots
MickinMD wrote:
 

So what do you play against 1 c4 c6?

One option is to fianchetto both bishops, put the d-pawn on d3, knights on f3 and d2. In the style of Capablanca:

 

 

Leko also used this attack against Kasparov. The game ended in a draw—a pretty good result against the higher-rated Kaspy, IMO.

On a personal note, I like 1.c4 a bit more than 1.d4 for an additional reason: sometimes it's nice to have the option of putting the d-pawn on d3 (like in the example above)—especially if you know your opponent likes to play the Stonewall or the Dutch, for example, with a plan of putting a knight on the e4 square. Being able to play d3 and attack that square can be frustrating for some of these players, deviating the game into a different sort of struggle.

shaonii

1d4wins wrote:

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.   

I agree a lot with you

CheckMated78

D4 is OK but check out this deadly attack with kings gambit.

CheckMated78

ZeaChessBoi

play d4 if you're lazy. you have the 0-1800+ rating opening London and you have queens gambit 1800-3000+. I mean I guess you have the Catalan but its the slow queens gambit. im not sayin its bad but I prefer e4 because its more chaotic. also if your scared of the opponent is going to play like a Sicilian then your just lazy because if you want to play "professionally"  you have to know allllll theory. French, Vienna, Sicilian, Caro kann, Kings gambit, Kings Indian etr. and its more fun then the 4 openings you play. 

Wildekaart

Refused to play 1. d4 for ages since I grew up playing 1. e4 all the time. It's the same thing as playing table tennis with the other side of the rubber than you're used to, or a new snooker cue. It might not make that much of a difference - it's only a racket, it's only a cue, and for 1. d4, it's only the first move - but it's a whole new world, as if you're learning chess for the first time again.

I still hardly ever play 1. d4 as White since I'm more familiar with 1. e4 openings but at least I know what to anticipate if I face it as Black.

NikkiLikeChikki
Yep. In order to play at the highest level, you simply MUST Play 1.d4.

The most recent World Chess Championship was proof. 10 games began with 1.e4. 3 games began with 1.c4. 2 games began with 1.d4.

Proof positive that the best way to play is 1.d4!!!

Oh wait.
CarnusMagelsun

I think there is a good reason why OG masters felt e4 was better and there is a reason why d4 is fashionable today. Personally I do feel (though not really strong enough to have more than a hunch) That d4 may have a slight objective merit.

e4 seems to be much more touchy and sensitive for black, so if two players knew zero theory I would expect wild evaluation swings to be more likely out of e4. This is kind of the rub though more games have been played out of e4 and everyone and their grandma is booked up, You can find quite weak players avoiding complex problems because theory is so fleshed out and well known.

d4 has an advantage in the battle is being ever so slightly delayed while still holding onto certain pluses for white. If a d4 game lasts 10 moves longer on average (I have no idea but my experience is super long drawn out games are more common in d4 besides the ruy) than we could see why a a modern player would like d4, it seems like d4 is about being fairly fast while looking to stifle black rather than just looking for pure acceleration and speed. 

 

CarnusMagelsun

A note on players who hate d4. They typically do not understand it very well, people often find things "boring" that they have trouble comprehending.

If e4 is the fistfight d4 is the guy that's trying to grapple. If the grappler has the initiative then the dude that wanted to throw haymakers is going to be quite upset when someone closes the distance and goes for a stranglehold.