Honestly, I play both e4 and d4. I'm not sure why people feel like they have to choose. I've been playing some c4 as well. I like to play endgames myself, regardless if I get there from some tactical attack or a positional bind.
Switching from e4 to d4 (or d4 to e4)
Sort:
guruprasad88 wrote:
Mika_Rao wrote:
guruprasad88 wrote:
Also, try to master the sicilian defense and pull off games. E4 players might outdo ur sicilian defense sometimes, but its good knowing how to defend it and come out victorious. I've seen very good E4 players loose shambolically to d4 players, sometimes vice versa.
Also, try to master the sicilian defense and pull off games. E4 players might outdo ur sicilian defense sometimes, but its good knowing how to defend it and come out victorious. I've seen very good E4 players loose shambolically to d4 players, sometimes vice versa.
Caro kann defense for black is generally for advanced level players, and e4 players generally can have good advantage playing it.
Really? I'd say sicilian is for advanced players and the caro is relatively easy equality.
Anyway, I may not have said it very well, but my real interest is switching up my middlegame positions.
Hi Mika_Rao,
In caro kann when you're black, white controls the center and might get to attack the king side directly. So i ended up in queen side castle mostly, but i thought white could localize his forces easily on the queen side as well, not to mention the formidable pawn push strategy when castling is on opposite sides. White already is the first mover. So i thought the position favored white a little more, unless black can undo these plans(i.e. an advanced player).
Good point. Everyone has different definitions of advanced. The caro may be difficult for newer players due to white's very reasonable position.
And sure, even GMs may blow each other up with a crazy attack (Carlsens game as a young kid comes to mind) but in terms of difficulty / amount of theory, I think the Sicilian wins.
Thunder_Penguin wrote:
Switch to d4???
NO.
Switch to 1.e3!!
I've had some odd games against 1.e3, I played 1...d5 and they were reversed Nimzos. Not sure if there's supposed to be anything special against 1.e3.
Hi Mika,
I like your reply. Although, my personal success rate with sicilian defense is a bit better and i fare better than caro kann defense. Maybe i'll check into a few traps which people play when i play caro-kann defense.
Anyhow, this was useful.
Play both , e4 & d4 , and any other variations you fancy , its all a learning curve and can only add to the depth , interest and enjoyment of your game.
:-)
Jun 19, 2014
0
#47
I personally have never played 1.d4 (except for annoying mouse slips). Almost all of my 1. e4 games are gambits except for playing against Caro Kann.. Personally, though, I feel that d4 contains more theory...Sicilian theory is rather easy to avoid by playing one line like the English Attack but QGA theory (when I tried to look at it) is much harder to understand. (Or maybe its my awful positional play.)
I'm not sure how 'advanced' the Caro is compared to the Sicilian; it's my current main opening vs 1.d4, but the reason I started playing it is that I was playing (getting whipped by) this very advanced player for quite a while and he happened to mention that he hated playing against the Caro-Kann. Well, that was all it took! I got a couple books and played a bunch of anonymous games online to see how it went and then I sprung it on him. Wham, I won that first game, but how much of that was my diligent study and how much was his being surprised, it's not clear.
Anyways, I found I quite liked it: it's a flank opening - maybe a bit of a surprise; not as enormous as the Sicilian to learn; it requires defensive skill/tactics in often cramped positions. There are possibly 6 or 7 main variations, some are quite sharp and open (Panov-Botvinnik, Accelerated Panov) and some are more positional and closed (Advanced, Classical). And if it's good enough for Botvinnik and Karpov, maybe us pond scum can use this tool as well!
Jun 20, 2014
0
#49
Indeed. You'd obviously misread my anecdote...I stated I learned to play against the French Winawer after playing the French Tarrasch line, and not switching to d4. It would be some years (7+ to be exact)
Jun 20, 2014
0
#50
Before I'd evolved to d4 openings.
To be honest, I don't get specifically what you'd meant in quote #36. As far ad the Caro being easier to learn than the Sicilian, I agree (as I play both)
najdorf96 wrote:
Indeed. You'd obviously misread my anecdote...I stated I learned to play against the French Winawer after playing the French Tarrasch line, and not switching to d4. It would be some years (7+ to be exact)
Sorry, it was late at night. Reading it again I understand now i.e. some openings aren't worth playing until you're a stronger player overall.
I agree and disagree. Where I disagree it's because of how I see myself.
I feel like I have a good grasp of the fundamentals of chess (lol, what rating wouldn't claim this I wonder) and feel like I can gain something from actively seeking my weak points. Or in other words, I don't feel like there is any opening that will leave me more or less debilitated for lack of understanding.
I also plan to get a coach to help learn from positions where I am especially ignorant.
You end saying you only get out of an opening what you put into it. I agree. And isn't there more to get out of an opening you don't understand? 
I don't mean results, I mean knowledge.
This is what I mean from #36. I'm considering the idea that focusing on my weak areas and gaining knowledge, while disregarding results in the short term, will boost my ability in the long term.
AKAL1 wrote:
I personally have never played 1.d4 (except for annoying mouse slips). Almost all of my 1. e4 games are gambits except for playing against Caro Kann.. Personally, though, I feel that d4 contains more theory...Sicilian theory is rather easy to avoid by playing one line like the English Attack but QGA theory (when I tried to look at it) is much harder to understand. (Or maybe its my awful positional play.)
Well it looks like d4 has more theory but when u look at the ECO you will see that sicilian takes a big part of it and ruy lopez too, they both belong to 1.e4. Also italian game/king's gambit has a lot of theory.
True d4 has queen's gambit theory, indian defenses, slav, grunfeld etc. but still I think e4 has more theory.
Jun 20, 2014
0
#53
My point is you can avoid those two openings and not have to memorize theory with something like a Scotch Game (against 1...e5) or the King's Indian Attack. After these lines, e4 contains little theory.
For example, in the Sicilian, I usually always adopt a Yugoslav system with the pawn on f3. For e5, I play the Ruy Lopez, memorize 10 moves of theory, and I am set. However, a d4 player needs to know the Slav, Meran, Tarrasch, KID, and other stuff.
There can't be anything bad about learning new openings. Giving d4 the occasional punt in internet games can't do anything except teach you.
Yes, I actually do use d4 in Internet games. However, I thought this was about using it in actually tournament play. There, I stick to what I know!
Jun 21, 2014
0
#57
Sometimes, building on what you already know is gar more useful or interesting than jumping into unknown theory...whether you enlist an coach or not. Again, just putting it out there. Getting outside help is indicative of an ambitious nature, rather than self-improvement (as far as creating your own opening repertoire goes).
To each their own, I guess. Best of luck, my friend.
najdorf96 wrote:
Sometimes, building on what you already know is gar more useful or interesting than jumping into unknown theory...whether you enlist an coach or not. Again, just putting it out there. Getting outside help is indicative of an ambitious nature, rather than self-improvement (as far as creating your own opening repertoire goes).
To each their own, I guess. Best of luck, my friend.
I don't know which is better (to switch or not), just trying to get some opinions. I appreciate the feedback.
When I started playing chess, I played e4 and only e4. Back in November of 2013, I made the switch to d4, and my chess improved dramatically (I was around 1600, then I suddenly started beating 1900s!):
http://main.uschess.org/datapage/ratings_graph.php?memid=15072302
So I think there is no harm in at least giving it a try.
im finally thinking about trying openings that are not e4 or d4, a lot transposes though. one of my main reasons playing d4 as white was so that as black I could beat irregular stuff easier. turns out tons of stuff transposes.
So yeah I would say learn d4 so that when someone plays something dumb as white you are not totally in the dark when you play d5.
Switch to 1. d3!!!