@lurarose #30. Sure after 1 e4 there is the whole e5 complex, various kinds of Sicilian, various variations of French, various Caro-Kann, Scandinavian, Pirc-Ufimtsev, Robatch, Nimzovich... Likewise after 1 d4 you have queen's gambit accepted, queen's gambit declined, Slav, King's Indian Defence, Grünfeld, Nimzo-Indian, Dutch. ECO volumes B and C together are not as thick as ECO volumes A, D, and E. So there is as much theory on 1 d4 as on 1 e4.
@tpr
How often when playing queens gambit do you see it accepted? Maybe 2% of the time? That line almost always goes to QGD, and if not that it's almost always slav.
QGA is weak than QGD, I welcome it.
I'm not saying there are not other lines with 1d4 in what I mentioned... It's just that there are far fewer that are played often.
VS a random opponent:
When I play 1d4 I'm almost sure I'm 90+% sure it's going QGD/Slav, or KID.
When I play 1e4 on the other hand... I'm about 60% sure it's going Double king pawn, or Sicilian.
People play way more moves after e4 more frequently. Yes any random move can come after any random move, and there are all sorts of lines, it's just what people play though.
How often when playing queens gambit do you see it accepted? Maybe 2% of the time? That line almost always goes to QGD, and if not that it's almost always slav.
QGA is weak than QGD, I welcome it.
I'm not saying there are not other lines with 1d4 in what I mentioned... It's just that there are far fewer that are played often.
VS a random opponent:
When I play 1d4 I'm almost sure I'm 90+% sure it's going QGD/Slav, or KID.
When I play 1e4 on the other hand... I'm about 60% sure it's going Double king pawn, or Sicilian.
People play way more moves after e4 more frequently. Yes any random move can come after any random move, and there are all sorts of lines, it's just what people play though.
Kasparov played QGA after he abandoned King's Indian Defence.
Even in QGD there are very distinct variations: Tarrasch, Orthodox, Cambridge Springs, Ragozin...
Even in QGD there are very distinct variations: Tarrasch, Orthodox, Cambridge Springs, Ragozin...
I have absolutely no doubts that e4 and d4 are equally good. I try to serve with both hands. ;)
But as mentioned before, 1.e4 is a more direct approach. I gave this move-by-move understandable example. Whereas 1.d4 is more subtle and hiding the intentions for the time being.
Or see it in a different way: explain to a weaker player Ruy hopeless (Spanish): attacking (in move 2!) and defending the e5 and „forcing“ exd4. Or Italian: attacking f7. Defense: don‘t get mated, there are no further long-term weaknesses.
Explain Queen‘s Gambit to a beginner for white: well, carrying out a „minority attack“ in the middlegame, weakening the pawns and winning the endgame. There‘s no easy way to explain to defend for Black because sitting still is not sufficient. Countering a non-stoppable minority attack is a tough nut to crack.
PS: of course such things as the long closed Spanish lines, they could be de facto considered to be in the realms of closed games. And there are 1.d4 openings which are wide open, sure.
But as mentioned before, 1.e4 is a more direct approach. I gave this move-by-move understandable example. Whereas 1.d4 is more subtle and hiding the intentions for the time being.
Or see it in a different way: explain to a weaker player Ruy hopeless (Spanish): attacking (in move 2!) and defending the e5 and „forcing“ exd4. Or Italian: attacking f7. Defense: don‘t get mated, there are no further long-term weaknesses.
Explain Queen‘s Gambit to a beginner for white: well, carrying out a „minority attack“ in the middlegame, weakening the pawns and winning the endgame. There‘s no easy way to explain to defend for Black because sitting still is not sufficient. Countering a non-stoppable minority attack is a tough nut to crack.
PS: of course such things as the long closed Spanish lines, they could be de facto considered to be in the realms of closed games. And there are 1.d4 openings which are wide open, sure.
@tpr
Yea, that's Kasparov though. I don't know about you, but I don't play so many games against Kasparov personally. Not saying it's unsound, but most don't play it well. Kasparov is strong enough I'm sure he could play something like the bird opening, and score well.
Yea, that's Kasparov though. I don't know about you, but I don't play so many games against Kasparov personally. Not saying it's unsound, but most don't play it well. Kasparov is strong enough I'm sure he could play something like the bird opening, and score well.
Also Carlsen has played QGA: against Giri 2016. Kasparov has played it several times against Kramnik, not some weak player.
Anyway, regardless of the merits of the QGA, my point is that there are as many variations after 1 d4 as after 1 e4 and as much theory too.
Anyway, regardless of the merits of the QGA, my point is that there are as many variations after 1 d4 as after 1 e4 and as much theory too.
My personal preference is 1.e4, but I have faced 1.d4 a lot and I have no doubts that 1.d4 is also good. Btw, I play QGA with good results, there is nothing wrong with QGA.
I think e4 makes the game more beautiful and enjoyable since generally leads to a tactical game
I prefer e4 as a more attacking player. Not sure that tactics should be separate from positions because they kind of go together in the sense that the chicken and the egg are related. I'm working on my d4 game because I don't see it as often and it has become a weakness for me. I started off playing d4 and got smashed against stronger players. I thought it was a weak opening but found out it was my understanding that was lacking. Knowing a little more, I like e4 now because I can develop faster on offense or defense. Helps me get all my pieces involved, which I was encouraged to do by Paul Morphy. Also, I like to study Mikhail Tal, and having those pieces out helps attacking. I am a hobbiest though and part of my preference is based on it being easier to attack than defend accurately. Taking them into that dark and deep forest, ya know.
G4 for the win.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.