Optimissed wrote:
Anyway, the important thing is that 1. d4 is statistically better than 1. e4 at a high level of play.
This "high level of play" doesnt really happen below 2200 though
D4 BETTER THAN E4?
Sort:
I'm saying that specifically, 1. e4 is vulnerable to the Paulsen Sicilian. Not to the other types of Sicilian with ...e5 for black or with g6. Kasparov never played ...e5 in the Sicilian ... he played e6 to try to win.
Feb 5, 2026
0
#44
Optimissed wrote:
I'm saying that specifically, 1. e4 is vulnerable to the Paulsen Sicilian. Not to the other types of Sicilian with ...e5 for black or with g6. Kasparov never played ...e5 in the Sicilian ... he played e6 to try to win.
The difference between us and Kasparov, is that he was world chess champion and could probably beat us all in any opening probably also regular GMs
Will-Makeyoublunder wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Anyway, the important thing is that 1. d4 is statistically better than 1. e4 at a high level of play.
This "high level of play" doesnt really happen below 2200 though
I agree. Well, I'm primarily an over the board player. I would say that it doesn't happen here below 2200 but over the board in England it can occur in games I take part in. It's rare because there's often a blunder but that can happn after a lot of very good moves have been played. My current rating is about 1950 ECF or FIDE. It's been higher. I'm getting old.
Optimissed wrote:
Anyway, the important thing is that 1. d4 is statistically better than 1. e4 at a high level of play.
This only exists in your head.
In the real world, top chess players play e4 and play d4. None of those is better than the other even one bit.
magipi wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Anyway, the important thing is that 1. d4 is statistically better than 1. e4 at a high level of play.
This only exists in your head.
In the real world, top chess players play e4 and play d4. None of those is better than the other even one bit.
I'm more tempted to think that you only exist in your head. Making an obvious personalisation like that shows the weakness of your argument. 1. e4 is the 4th best opening move, statistically.
Although to try to find arguments for your position on that, then theoretically and with good play on both sides, obviously all four best opening moves statistically are drawn and none is better than any other. But that's not what we're discussing. This isn't the "can chess be solved" thread where everything is ideal except when they're losing their arguments. Then it's apt to get messy. I don't make a habit of losing arguments of course. 
We're discussing actual statistics.
Optimissed wrote:
magipi wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Anyway, the important thing is that 1. d4 is statistically better than 1. e4 at a high level of play.
This only exists in your head.
In the real world, top chess players play e4 and play d4. None of those is better than the other even one bit.
I'm more tempted to think that you only exist in your head. Making an obvious personalisation like that shows the weakness of your argument. 1. e4 is the 4th best opening move, statistically.
Again, those statistics don't exist. You obviously just made that up. Almost all top players play 1. e4 just as often as 1. d4, and more often than anything else.
magipi wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
magipi wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Anyway, the important thing is that 1. d4 is statistically better than 1. e4 at a high level of play.
This only exists in your head.
In the real world, top chess players play e4 and play d4. None of those is better than the other even one bit.
I'm more tempted to think that you only exist in your head. Making an obvious personalisation like that shows the weakness of your argument. 1. e4 is the 4th best opening move, statistically.
Again, those statistics don't exist. You obviously just made that up. Almost all top players play 1. e4 just as often as 1. d4, and more often than anything else.
OK I'm not being disrespectful but I perhaps need to explain it in very simple terms.
A lot of people would simply look at the fact that we disagree on something and automatically back me. They would back my judgement against yours. However, that isn't an argument.
Let's take the four moves, 1. Nf3, 1. c4, 1. d4 and 1. e4.
Now let's imagine that a thorough analysis of the statistics regarding those four moves, played at a very high level, has been made.
Ask yourself whether you would expect the statistics of win and draw peercentages on all four moves to be identical to one-another?
If yes, then perhaps you should think again, because the odds against it are stupendously high. If no, then statistically there's a difference and you've just realised that your argument here has been mistaken. Is that OK with you?
Again, I don't think such statistics exist. I also don't think they would be relevant in any way. I also don't think they would show 1. e4 as fourth best.
Feb 5, 2026
0
#53
Can yall calm TF down, why are yall arguing over an absolutely irrelevant statistic that doesnt matter below IM level?
Feb 5, 2026
0
#54
Will-Makeyoublunder wrote:
Can yall calm TF down, why are yall arguing over an absolutely irrelevant statistic that doesnt matter below IM level?
TICCPROW
Feb 5, 2026
0
#55
sawdof wrote:
Will-Makeyoublunder wrote:
Can yall calm TF down, why are yall arguing over an absolutely irrelevant statistic that doesnt matter below IM level?
TICCPROW
HUH
Feb 5, 2026
0
#56
Bro I’m 10 and anyway 1300 rated in rapid… me don’t need to go to chesskid.com
Feb 5, 2026
0
#57
shashwatswarup wrote:
Bro I’m 10 and anyway 1300 rated in rapid… me don’t need to go to chesskid.com
Yes you do
Statistics matter at every level.
Of course master statistics do not matter at patzer level but patzer statistics do.
Feb 5, 2026
0
#59
sawdof wrote:
Will-Makeyoublunder wrote:
Can yall calm TF down, why are yall arguing over an absolutely irrelevant statistic that doesnt matter below IM level?
TICCPROW
martian 100%
Feb 5, 2026
0
#60
The best first move is the one you play best with. Objectively speaking, 1.d4 and 1.e4 are the same level. If you prefer open, tactical affairs, then 1.e4 is the best, but if you like to play positionally, slowly gaining small advantages that slowly mount up, and suffocating your opponent, you play 1.d4. I prefer 1.e4 personally but that does not mean 1.d4 is worse.
But maybe 1. d4 is a far harder thing to play well because there's a lot of variations that look similar to one-another and ppl get confused. 1. e4 is vulnerable to the Sicilian with ...a6 and ...e6. Black targets the vulnerable e4 pawn, attacks it with pieces and the tries to play ...d5. If ed, black recaptures with a piece very often and the tables are turned. Black becomes dominant in the centre. All white might have is a Q side attack.
the spanish variatons also look similar, and can get confused easily. also, youre saying "is vulnerable" to the sicilian, even though the sicilian is just fine for white, maybe the open is harder to play because of the many variatons, but not the Rossolimo or closed sicilian. and black might dominate the center with pawns 2>1 but in a lot of sveshnikov variatons theres a knight on d5 from white, so just equal again
White can't hope for a win against someone playing the Sicilian who really knows what they're doing. Well, white can hope.
But basically, you admittsd that the Spanish, which is considered white's best try against 1. e5, is a total grind with confusing variations just like the Queens Gambit.
I was recounting my actual experience, My average wins with white were 55 moves. I needed quicker wins with white to have bigger chance of prize money. I switched to 1. d4 and found my wins coming in 35 moves or so. That's a practical test.
N.1, all i see you play is blitz, at 1600 well noted, 90+% of games at that level will have a decisive result no matter what. But ur "Moves to win" is ilegitimate, because maybe you failed to accurately convert an advantage, and then had to grind longer, etc etc, and then again, youre 1 person, thered need to be way more people to have an accurate result