Is 1.e4 for heros and 1.d4 for cowards? elaborate.

Better yet create a new website for it. www.e4vsd4.com

I disagree, I don't care if engines can find a draw or even the slightest edge for black, when the fried liver and lolli each score 75%+ for white in over 1000 games, white has a much easier position to play, etc, the move Nxd5 might not deserve a ??, but at least a ?.

Fulliautomatix wrote:

1 e4 all the way!  (especially if you're right handed)

Lol, good answer haha(laughing)

I play e4

This topic is totally pointless.

Sicilian! Frence, French and French.

do not post anything comment at all if ur going to say something ridiculous like "this topic is pointless"!!!

Positional play and tactics cannot be divorced. Really, there are sharp and quiet positions for both moves--and quiet does not necessarily mean drawish, it might be the calm before the storm. If you try to learn and understand the "boring positional play" of some d4 openings, you will gain a better understanding of chess as a whole and I'm sure that will give you better tactics in your e4 games.

For the record, I have always been an e4 player. But after I have experimented enough with black defences against d4, I'd probably make some changes now and then...its nice to try out new stuff.

@passionate fighter, take it your one of these kinda cat's who have a favourite chess piece ??  to say playing d4 is boring is just plain daft , cuz it can lead to closed positions, what about the closed spaninsh, it doesn't get more closed and positional than that, and thats from a e4 openining

Firstly, you're seriously claiming a class of untutored children is the best authority?

Secondly, the smart kids pointed out that she hasn't moved any pieces yet.

This thread/topic has merit. Pointless are the threads I contribute to. . . er . . . except this one . . . that I am posting to. 

e4 for me only because it was what I learned first and can't break the habit. I don't want to study  opening theory too much, so I stick to the familiar. When I did start reading chess books, of course I read a lot about Fischer. He played e4 a bunch so I figured it must be good, I realize that was 30-40 years ago, but I also know that sound principles can help a person through unfamiliar territory. I don't feel the need to try and keep up with current theory created by chess players at a level I'll never attain and rarely understand unless I'm told how to understand it in some book or article.

I have to defend against d4 in many games so it seems I should learn it more to understand how to defend against it. But then I realize, I can study it and if no one makes the moves I studied then whoopty doo, what was the point. After just 4 moves a side there's almost 200,000 possible chess board positions. You're barely into any line in any opening study. I do have other things in life to entertain myself with then figuring that out.

d4 has long been deemed boring and cowardly because it often leads to positional plays with little attcks and aggressiveness - the same has been said to its advocates such as Petrosian and Smyslov. e4, on the other hand, is most promising to bring chaos on the board, and we all love chaos!

all depends on your taste and style, i like to play all openings, the french and caro kan dont really appeal to me, but i like playing against them , maybe i should play them as black for that fact alone, i like opening like the reti which are transpositional, its good to keep your options open, but if something works for you then by all means play it

I have played d4 and have one of my best wins against the computer with it, but now I'm starting to think that the are ways 1.e4 can turn into positional games i.e the french or the caro kann etc. ...so I think I will start playing only 1.d4

keeep your options open, the more openings you can play, the more weapons at your disposal

What did you say?!  Take that back, take it back now!!! :D

Every opening has certain dull lines, if they are seeked out. The Petroff or the Italian game (pianissimo) are probably as bad as the worst d4-d5 lines.

What does d4 all feature? The Dutch, the Kid, the Benoni, the semi Slav, you name it. Even the f3-Nimzo can be nice at times.

It is not the opening you play, it's what you want to make of it.

I love 1.d4 but I don't like 1.e4 so much because its games are very tactical. 

Well, i would agree that 1.e4 have grater chance to follow in tactical game that 1.d4. But that is all.

If you use words like 'hero' and 'coward', that may means you better start practice boxing instead playing chess. We all know that the greater hero is, the more he punches 'bad' guys. In chess there is almost noone to call bad guy. You are playing to improve or to have thrill from rivalisation - and not because someone needs a hero or some bad needs to be punished.

Take care.

I say e4 is for heroes, and d4 is for cowards, but only when I lose against d4 :P