Play online chess!

From	Message
wrecking_ball 30-Mar-14, 22:03	e4 or d4 opening preferences? I would have definitely suggest to all of you...about experimenting with different openings to widen the scope of your game repertoire.Of course,do not forget that moves like 1.b3 or 1.Nf3 can simply transpose into various openings that would have started with 1.d4 or 1.e4 anyway. I suppose my point in the thread was that... when you "were" playing with the e or d openings....which did you prefer "at the time" and which one did you have more success with? I have a reason to ask this. Opinions will vary greatly,but in theory and for learning purposes the d4 or e4 openings can and many times do have distinctive characteristics that separate one from the other. Let me back up a bit in my story,however,before I explain.In High School I was in the chess club and during that time in 1972,Fischer was playing Spassky.Now,as we all know,Fischer was the 1.e4 guy and the guy that stuck primarily with that opening and coined the phrase...."1.e4....Best by test".So with that famous match going on,it then was only proper and fitting that everyone wanted to copy the US hero's moves....e4.So everyone played this e4 opening.....all EXCEPT ME!I was the "thorn" stabbing at all the chess players in the club back then!And because all these players became brain froze to e4,when they encountered my 1.d4 "antisicilian" response or my Trompowski moves they became so lost on the board that many folded in less than 20 moves.Some players even refused to play me and simply take a forfeit loss!No wonder I had the first place trophy 4 years in a row! I have self analyzed my games over the years and let a GM or two at the Manhattan Chess club(now closed)take a look at my High School games and college chess games.After brewing and stewing things up,looking over both my e4 and d4 openings...we both came to a few conclusions: 1.d4 games many times more swifty leads to more "closed"type of games and 1.e4 many times tends to lead to quicker open type of games.Well so what you may ask? Well,it appeared to both the GM and myself that I excelled and learned faster,stronger and better at the game because most of my games with d4 had more of a closed and complex structure to the pieces,pawns ect.Due to this closed nature of the game,it required my brain to come up with deeper tactical insight and playing ability as opposed to an e4 game that statistically tended to open up faster and did not many times require nearly the same set of skills,even on a positional level.Now keep in mind,I was perhaps a 1600 player and my opponents were perhaps around 1400-1500 on average.So what I say about e4 and d4 does not necessarily correspond to 2200 players which tolls a much higher level of strategy.I'm speaking of the "learning curve"I was going through at the time and my other opponents. So in summary,its my opinion that studying the d4 openings first in closed positions has more learning value over the e4 openings because you are dealing with a closed position more often than not.The tactical value in closed positions can develop,for example,a better set of skills with your Knights,in order that you can visualize that fork better in tight positions as opposed to a fully open game under the e4 umbrella.The semi slav/anti-meran can have very complex positions.Just like the Russians throwing a baby into the water to learn how to swim and swim fast,I believe in the d4 openings for initial learning...then on to 1.e4!Now opinions will vary on that.Some players will say,no study the open positions first and then move on to more closed positions.I say no to this,because I believe that it is better to sharpen your skills with the more complex pawn chain configurations and tighter closed positions for brain training to hone your skills to higher plateau levels,quicker.In any case,many players are not comfortable with the Sicilian response to 1.e4,so playing 1.d4 has its advantages.In addition,let me add that 1.d4 is one of my favorite ways to respond(much more than 1.e4) due to the fact that "theory"and book lines can be more avoided in games like the Trompowski(1.d4,Nf6 2.Bg5).This forced my opponent to "think on his own" rather than follow some Ruy Lopez line 35 moves deep! Below are some things to keep in mind with many differences that become apparent with e4 vs d4 opening,so the style of your play can change radically: 1.e4 tends to lead toward play with the center free, or open of pawns. Hence, the definition of "open". 2.e4 e5 generally leads to fully open games. These are often marked by free ranging piece play in the center. Generally, castling early is absolutely essential when the center is fully open. 3.e4 vs most other lines generally leads to semi-open games, often with one central pawn traded off each. The play in the center is usually marked by the pawn structure being in flux for several moves. 4.d4 d5 generally leads to closed games. This term suggests that the central pawns remain in tact through most of the opening. The pieces generally position themselves to prepare for a central pawn break. The king is generally safer in the center for a few moves longer in closed positions. Closed positions are considered a bit tougher to play because they can be opened up at any time while open positions are rarely closed back up. 5.The final major category, semi-closed positions generally refers to 1.d4 vs anything but 1...d5. These are quite similar to the closed positions, but just as the semi-open positions, generally have a greater range of pawn structures. 1.c4 usually results in semi-closed positions. 6.Transpositions between different types of openings do occur, but it's relatively rare to have a fully closed game from 1.e4 or a fully open position from 1.d4
wrecking_ball 30-Mar-14, 22:04	Well,its a matter of taste,but I highly suggest you investigate the 1.d4 openings sometime. There are many different types of openings that result from 1.d4 including the dutch defense and one of my favorites....the Trompowski Attack.To get better and stronger at chess,you must round out your opening repertoire to include the main 1.d4 or 1.c4(like English Openings) and even 1.Nf3(Reti).Not being prepared on the black side of 1.d4 will hold your learning back as well. If you'll notice,even the top rated player on GK...akjoltoy and a few top players under him(not to mention myself) use 1.d4 quite frequently,even the majority of times.You'll also note that akjoltoy uses 1.Nf3(Reti)quite alot.Just check his games in progress for proof. So,if the top players use 1.d4,even more than 1.e4...what message does this give you? It must be an excellent way to win,and against strong competition!Susan Polgar has used 1.d4 quite frequently in her tournament play. So,Joe,I know you seldom,if ever vary away from 1.e4(I checked a good # of your past games)but again,I highly suggest you begin to experiment with an opening that can lead to more closed positions....1.d4.Atleast try a few unrated games if you are worried about losing with the 1.d4 opening due to inexperience with it. All I can say is that I have had great success with the Q pawn openings,even more than the K pawn openings...atleast on the higher levels.And i'll give you alittle secret why.Much of the 1.e4 openings have been so exaustively analyzed to death,including huge databases of opening knowledge,that many players are simply using book openings as long as 40 moves or more,so its like 2 players not even playing themselves,but using a GM database.In many 1.d4 openings(not all but a few like the Trompowski and others)the openings move out of database quicker than more of the 1.e4 openings and your opponent is forced to play on his own with no database!Thus,more losses can occur on the black side with a bit more preparation on the white side! So,its up to you Joe,but again,I suggest investigating both 1.d4 and even the pure English lines with 1.c4(another strong favorite of mine).
wrecking_ball 30-Mar-14, 22:08	checkcharlie 08-Sep-13, 13:47 e4 or d4 Generally, I play the closed d4 openings against an opponent of similar or higher rating to myself, so allowing the opportunity for tactical play, because the opponent is more likely to follow "book theory." I play e4 openings for opponents rated less than me for more open and positional games and because the opponent is less likely to follow "book theory" and the game could soon develop "off book". tactical_abyss 08-Sep-13, 14:26 Interesting.I have found a good number of of opposite results!Many of my opponents after I play the King pawn opening stay strictly in book,many over 25-30 moves and many of my opponents play out of book when I open with the Q pawn opening.Of course,many books are better and run much deeper than others...especially the professional books like the Hiarcs books and other pro books.So "out of book"especially if your only using the GK book is nowhere near others in quality and strength. Charlie,have you played any of the Trompowski Attack games after you moved 1.d4?One thing about that opening is that it many times moves swiftly out of book.It is one of my favorite attack games and I have some examples on GK and from other sites that I can dig up. Here is two of them: game game Interesting enough,drhpatron in that first game actually told me that he was lost in such an unusual game to him and it did indeed move out of book quickly,atleast at that time.As you can see,it wasen't long before I crushed him and his rating is high. checkcharlie 08-Sep-13, 14:48 I tend to play c4 or Nf3 after d4 and bring out the B before doing e3. I've long forgotten some of the names for the specific openings, so you have inspired me to get my MCO out! My brain is having to work overtime again! tactical_abyss 08-Sep-13, 15:01 In many ways MCO is outdated and there are a few errors in it....but I use MCO-15 quite alot!Even MCO-12 with the descriptive notation!Old,dusty,but good! You bring out the Bishop early to where?I assume you are just transposing to a standard A50 or a Q fianchetto opening?Just wondering,thats all. checkcharlie 08-Sep-13, 15:37 I have MCO-13 & MCO-15 and is very useful in identifying the named variations. B goes to g5 or f4 as appropriate. tactical_abyss 08-Sep-13, 21:33 Hi Charlie, May I suggest you delve into a Trompowski Attack as white sometime?Tromp games turn into beautiful wins on occasion by throwing the black opponent off guard with out of book moves that throw those "imprint" opening chess pattern guys way off balance! example: 1.d4,Nf6 2.Bg5,c5 3.Bxf6,gxf6 4.d5,Qb6 ect or 1.d4,d5 2.Bg5,f6 3.Bh4,Nh6 ect A pure Tromp requires the Bishop Knight exchange(like above),but offshoots of the Tromp,like in the second example are equally as good.
darknite13 05-Apr-14, 09:51	Interesting... Because when I first began, I hated using e4 and d4 simply because I felt cramped into only playing these 2 openings. Especially when my opponents didn't respond with e5 and d5 I hated trying to "figure out" what to respond with. Eventually, I got a GM coach who taught me that while e4 and d4 are both tried and true, and are recommended in most cases, there are other perfectly valid responses that can materialize, but just not as often. When I first "was allowed" to play moves like 1. c4, and 1. Nf3, I felt a huge weight come off my shoulders. Now it is true that beginners learning the game should play 1. e4 or 1. d4 as this usually leads to less complexity later in their level of games, but I'm here as an avid advocate to try other openings. Win or lose, you at least learn something (I hope at least). Particularly, Blitz games you should try and confuse your opponents to get them to burn their time out or at least throw the opposition off their games. Like wrecking_ball I do throw these curveball out of the book opening in rapid games just to see how my opponents respond. Especially if it is opponents who I have a sense of familiarity with.
hogfysshe 05-Apr-14, 14:52	my absence of a plan... When I got back into playing (well, really for the first time) a few years ago, for some reason I gravitated toward 1.d4. I was reading as I played and read that 1.e4 tended to lead to early exchanges that this was less so with 1.d4. That appealed because I liked and still like having a decent selection of tools in the toolbox and did/do not like being stripped down too early. So, continuing with 1.d4 was justified, ...at the expense of 1.e4. Then I saw a guy play the English/Bremen opening and doing very well. So this became my next opening. Not long after, I recognized that the stats for the Reti and Benko put those two right up there with d4, c4, and the obscure and unknown e4. Couldn't resist taking those two out for a spin. Since e4 was lagging behind, I finally decided to make friends and it has just passed c4 in my gk personal database. That database shows: d4 (38 games), e4 (25), c4 (21), Nf3 (14), and g3 (5). I feel reasonably good about where my game is. In light of the comments above, I think that having played a lot of more closed games and having all sorts of options with a greater variety of pieces has helped my tactical awareness (probably pawn awareness as well). Since playing e4 more, I get in to a lot of games with a where there is more of a brute drawdown of pieces which I don't like (I would rather find a way to amplify the value of my pieces or my overall position but one of us has forced a liquidation). Of course, I am playing tougher opponents. So I am probably still in the very early stages of finding my way with e4. And since those other openings have been on simmer, it's back to the drawing board with those as well, ...though I did just draw as white vs the highest rated player I didn't lose to in a game starting with c4. So I suppose there is still some comfort there. this discussion makes me think I'll want to update my 1.d4 experience. thanks WB and darknite.
wrecking_ball 05-Apr-14, 16:07	Ken, I've noticed that(in your games that I checked),a great # of your losses occur with your 1.e4 openings,even though they are mainline openings.Apparently,you do not play nearly as many 1.d4 closed games.Are you more unfamiliar or uncomfortable with 1.d4?Just asking for now.perhaps more experimentation in the d4 games(like the Trompowski)may be just the key necessary to widen your scope in the theory dept and perhaps strengthen your game play?
wrecking_ball 05-Apr-14, 16:18	Todd, The "pure" English lines without transposition are good ways to improve and take you away from the d4 or e4 games.Have you tried the English Symmetrical on both sides...white and black? 1.c4,c5 which has much more of a learning curve with potential countergambits,isolated QP formations and cramped hedgehog developments.This is getting off the subject of "hypermodern",but I just though i'd make a side note question on that.
darknite13 05-Apr-14, 16:29	Guess what I tried to do here... ...is change up some of what I did over the board in terms of openings. If I go through all of my games over the board for white, probably 25-30% are 1. e4, another 40% are 1. d4, and the remaining are a mix of Reti, English, and some others. Blitz is my open ground to try out more of the exotic openings, but I guess what I tried to do on the site is use more mainstream openings, like the Ruy Lopez, and be more of a balanced player than I was playing over the board. Perhaps this was the wrong approach and something I need to consider going forward. It's not that I try to avoid what I used to do so well, it's just I was trying to become a more refined player and see how much of the mainline opening theory I could remember. Like I said though, this is something I need to keep in mind going forward. Thanks for the assessment.
wrecking_ball 05-Apr-14, 16:41	Ken My suggestion is to go perhaps 70% 1.d4 for a few months and thrown in some occassional Tromps!Just a suggestion!As to blitz...i'm a pro at the Basman(check my post)and thrown a million monkey wrenches at my opponents.It dosen't matter(technically) if the 1.e4,g5 playing the black side is weaker.So many opponents brains get twisted with that approach in a 3 or 5 minute game...with no increment(key!) that they fall like fly's in a 10,000 degree oven. Again,I have not looked over your entire game history.The ones i checked were mainly losses you incurred as white playing 1.e4.So if your % of white games is higher playing 1.d4(40%)(I did not know)is your actual success rate higher in the win dept playing 1.d4 over 1.e4?
darknite13 05-Apr-14, 17:02	Hmm my win percentage I would probably say is relatively 35-45% for 1. e4 openings and probably like 30-40% for 1. d4 (Remember there is a larger pool for d4 games than e4). This was back when I was a tournament player. I tried a tromp game against a higher rated on my team, and it ended in a draw but I felt as though it should have been a loss. For some reason, that opening when I've played it in OTB chess, I feel as though I can catch my opponent off guard more often than in the realm of correspondence chess. (I've used that in normal games and in blitz, with far more success in blitz play) Like I said in my introduction, my main issues with my games now I still struggle with include finding the critical weak points in some of my higher rated games, or I under calculate sometimes and bend under extreme pressure. So it's really not the opening that seems to be the issue, it is in the middlegame. Here is an example of a couple of games like that: game (the game against my team member) and game But I will try more d4-openings for a bit (in addition to some of the c4, Nf3 I tend to mix in on occasion). Perhaps my issue is when evaluating a position, I under calculate and allow my opponents opportunity to get back into the game.
wrecking_ball 05-Apr-14, 17:18	Ken Actually my personal win rate with 1.d4 in my entire chess history is MUCH higher than playing 1.e4 games.I attribute that to mainly concentrating on those openings and mid games and also because most of my opponents prefer the King pawn games over the QP and in many cases are a bit weaker or unconfortable in them due to more closed positions.If you take a look at some of the Tromp books I have suggested in another post,I truly feel that your success rate will go way beyond a draw ratio using that Polgar style opening.Mid game strategy can actually get quite complex.But again that's me,not necessarily your flavor of ice cream.
hogfysshe 05-Apr-14, 17:25	WB wrote: <<<......Have you tried the English Symmetrical on both sides...white and black? 1.c4,c5 which has much more of a learning curve with potential countergambits,isolated QP formations and cramped hedgehog developments.......>>>. haven't played much english symmetrical, though I recall easy19 mentioning he thought that was best for black. frustrating I play so few games that I don't get to experiment as much as I'd like.
wrecking_ball 05-Apr-14, 17:38	Todd... Try the Symm out sometime!Set a software chess playing program down a bit in strength or like me,play against a tabletop chess computer and see how you par.This way,if you lose it won't cost you any rating points.It will also challenge yourself to something new.
thereaper1 05-Apr-14, 18:47	There might be some truth to this. I actually started out as a 1.d4 player as well and I think that by far my highest success rate will have come from 1.d4 openings (infact I notice a recent trend in GM games being more 1.d4 these days. Perhaps this is just to avoid the berlin.) Having said that I'm quite flexible with my openings as white and have tried the English quite a lot as well. Mentioning the symmetrical English is interesting because it one of my favorite openings. Oddly enough I actually feel more comfortable with it when I play black which seems anti intuitive since shouldn't black being a tempo down make him worse? Not that I think white is much worse, I just feel comfortable with black but still love playing the symmetrical as both because I just think I have an edge over most players my own rating in those types of positions.
baddeeds 05-Apr-14, 20:02	I've noticed the opposite. In my past experiences, most of the time, I've had better luck with 1.e4, but that's because I know a lot more variations affiliated with it such as the French Defense, Sicilian Defense, Ruy Lopez, and a little bit about the Caro Kann and Semi Slav defense. But, with 1.d4 the only variation that I'm familiar with is the QG and then what's associated with it, QGA, and QGD. But, this is more of a reason, believe it or not, that I'd like to become familiar with other variations for 1.d4, aside from QG because as caveman1960 pointed out in a training session, "The more you learn shows how little you know."
darknite13 05-Apr-14, 20:24	After a brief look at some of my old OTB games... The majority of my success has come from where I've branched out and used openings like the English, and the Reti. King's Gambit is also one I've had success with but I stopped at 1700ish because a GM told me to avoid gambit lines, as they tend to be inferior especially in higher level play. My success rate with the non e4 or non d4 openings from what I have seen so far is like around 60% win 10% draw. Of course I've only scratched the surface of my 15 year chess career and still have many, many games to look over again.
wrecking_ball 05-Apr-14, 20:32	Very observant of you James.Yes,many GM games are trending towards d4.Many GM's feel that complicating more closed positions have more winning potential.There seems to be a higher degree of speculative attempts to complicate or unclear,murky positions with reserved judgement on the outcome with the QP games,at least theoretically.In a nutshell,many 1.e4 games have a higher percentage of extensively researched subvariant lines that offer just a bit less in the surprise department on the GM levels who do their research(along with their research team).Its all a matter of opinion,nothing written in stone.And of course,most of us on GK are not GM's,so opinions will vary. No,there really is no loss of tempo in the Symm English,equalization rapidly occurs,as long as you follow some of the better book lines within the first 10-15 moves.As to avoiding things like the Berlin with the 1.e4 games....take a look at my win against a 2200+player who said that her Berlin Wall was..."impregnable": game Well,think again!
wrecking_ball 21-Jun-14, 14:58	reaper1: Just looking over some old comments in my threads I came across your above comment.... "There might be some truth to this. I actually started out as a 1.d4 player as well and I think that by far my highest success rate will have come from 1.d4 openings (infact I notice a recent trend in GM games being more 1.d4 these days. Perhaps this is just to avoid the berlin.) Having said that I'm quite flexible with my openings as white and have tried the English quite a lot as well." Unquote. That part about the "Berlin Wall" reminds me of a past game I played against a well known master on this site.I not only did NOT want to avoid the "Berlin",I beckoned for it and the game's theme was preset with the Berlin in mind.As you may well know already,I enjoy proving players WRONG about certain kinds of "preset"thinking they have developed regarding "solid"defenses.This players attitude at the time was that her "wall was impregnable" and she said that she proved its value against other masters/senior masters by drawing against much higher rated players than herself.Of course,she never met a player like me on the board! Impregnable?Really?Ahhhhhh....a challenge I could not refuse!!! Game below: game 55 moves later,she lost.Sure,I was TA at the time at 2500+,but she stated that she drew with a senior master on this site and bragged about her wall as impregnable.Not long after that loss and after I posted that win for me against her wall in my past club,she ran away from the club by cancelling her club membership.I kind of expected that!Now,she claims that I am not a "humble" enough mentor player like cyrano and uses that excuse to stay clear of players like me or any club I start.I see through players like this the same way a carbon dioxide laser beam would cut through butter!!!And I scoff at her...really!!!!I do not need to be more humble,but need to throw boiling water at some players to have them wake up and smell the coffee and get them burned in the process!Otherwise,a candy coating humble nice approach will eventually get lost in the murky "forget"fog.I must instill a solid imprint of "forget me not"..with rose stems and thorns and no roses to smell!Call it my "limburger chess rose"! The idea is to NOT be humble!I illustrated through my OWN PROOF directed at HER to NOT brag that a Berlin wall is impregnable!I will NOT candy coat her loss and use humble words!Why?That is obvious!When any player has a "misconception"about a defense,whether it be a Basman Defense or a Berlin and mentions words like "impregnable"...they are indeed bragging and leaving themselves WIDE open to a counter-attack of words and game crushing proof that they are wrong!!!So,I will shine a mirror back upon an occasional master like this and brag Back with my win and defeat of her wall!Don't like it?Tuff!Leave the club now,speak to the hand and good luck! And if one thinks that I just got lucky with this win against a 2200+player,think again!I have approx 36 wins playing white against the Berlin and winning,NOT drawing!And against 2100-2400 players.These game's are,however,in my postal records and club games score sheets at the Marshall.I can bring these games into the club light at any time! Motto: If you brag about something that is indeed fine with me and I accept and love you to do that! BUT,BUT,BUT......you better back that brag up with fact,not just a shadowy cardboard game of words and one draw against a senior master on GK to feebly back up what you preach!!!! So I won the bragging rights here,not the player above in the game link! No need to be humble with this player.I get the whip with razor blades on the whip to prove a point.I will not throw cotton candy here!Humble cotton candy is not a good learning tool in many cases where a players attitude is set in stone with misconceptions. Just venting here reaper1! WB
wrecking_ball 26-Jun-14, 16:47	Deleted by wrecking_ball on 26-Jun-14, 17:00.
wrecking_ball 26-Jun-14, 17:00	Addtional comments on the flavor of ice cream you prefer: Just adding a few comments to the d4 or e4 preference.Its a matter of what flavor of ice cream you prefer.Sure,ive heard time and time again that learning the 1.e4 openings for the beginner to intermediate player is best.But this is not written in stone.Sometime's by giving you some added comments by the GM's,mathematicians(like some of the comments below by physicisyt and mathematician Halkias),chess pro's and senior masters like myself,you may decide to switch to 1.d4 study and play rather than the more traditional 1.e4 openings. In reality,some players actually excel faster in the learning process by playing games that statistically end up in more complex and closed positions like many of the 1.d4 openings do. If,for example,you may be a little weak utilizing your Knight's...then practicing on more closed games can have better beneficial results...since Knights have a theoretically higher value in closed positions.Learning to build a higher range of tactical motifs in a tighter game,escapes,attacks and defenses can send a kind of honed in memory imprint on your mind to sharpen your chess skills faster than playing resultant wide open games time and time again with the 1.e4 openings.Want to practice to strengthen your Bishop motiffs?Then perhaps concentrate on the 1.e4 games that tend to be statistically more open in nature from early on to midgame.This is where Bishops shine more than the Knights. Is 1.e4 best by test today anymore?Not necessarily anymore,even on the GM levels of play.Let me interject that my personal success rate using 1.d4 openings:My win rate is generally HIGHER than using the more established lines of the 1.e4 openings...especially with the 1....c5 response of the Sicilian. As to one of the best learning 1.d4 openings for beginners/intermediate,let me copy/paste this link on the Zuker opening as explained by GM Susan Polgar: www.youtube.com Now as to more defined comments with respect to e4 or d4 games: The World Championship test: Another method to compare these two moves, using actual facts and information instead of general ideas, is to observe the world championships. In a world championship, the players prefer the move they consider more beneficial; the move they believe will offer them more opportunities to achieve victory (especially when playing white). The contenders have, of course, practiced time and again and every defeat signifies a major weakness. What is more, world championships constitute a great study sample simply because there is no other tournament where players demonstrate such seriousness and concentration. Let us examine the results of the modern chess era, meaning the most recent world championships, starting from the year 2000 when Kramnik became world champion. In 89 games 1.e4 was used 25 times resulting in: only one win, three losses and 21 draws. In 89 games 1.d4 was used 62 times resulting in: 18 wins, 6 losses and 38 draws. So,as to the stats above,then we must conclude: The move 1.d4 is the preferred opening move almost three times more often than 1.e4 in world championships. It reduces the chances of defeat and offers over seven times more possibilities of victory. The number of draws resulting from this move is also significantly smaller, proving that it is actually more offensive that the 1.e4 opening, contrary to common belief. The last and only victory achieved by playing 1.e4 occurred ten years ago (!) by Peter Leko, a chess player famous for only opening with 1.e4 (he thus knew the resulting positions very well). However, even he abandoned it (before the end of the match) and continued with 1.d4. His case also brings Fischer to mind, who almost exclusively opened with 1.e4 as well. But during his match against Spassky for the world championship two out of his three victories, while playing white, were not achieved by 1.e4. The last known defeat after playing 1.d4 occurred in the last world championship between Anand and Carlsen. Anand could end the match in a draw, but he needed to win the game and was thus forced to play in a more risky and reckless manner, which resulted in his defeat. Therefore, the real percentage of defeats after using the 1.d4 opening, not counting the one mentioned above, becomes 8%. Vassily Ivanchuck said that Anand shouldn't waste his white games against Carlsen with 1.e4 but play 1.d4 right away, as in his (Ivanchuck's) opinion this would give Vishy more chances for a win. We think this might well be true, since every time Anand was close to wining a game it had started with 1.d4! 1. Controlling the center When it comes to controlling the center, moving to 1.d4 would clearly be the best option. The reason is quite simple: d4 can control two central squares when e4 can only control one. Playing 1.d4, we are able to control both d4 with the queen and e5 with the pawn, while playing 1.e4 will only help us control d5. Therefore, 1.d4 is clearly the best option in order to control the center. 2. Center and stability When it comes to stabilizing the center – and therefore our strategic plans for the game – the best move to play would again be 1.d4. If the player chooses to play 1.e4, his completely unprotected pawn can offer the opponent the opportunity to counterattack, regardless of his preferred method of playing. He could, for example, take advantage of the situation and strategically develop his pieces using the French Defense, or push forward leading to a tactical game by playing the Alekhine or the Scandinavian. On the contrary, after playing 1.d4, the black player cannot directly threaten that pawn as it is being protected by the queen. As a result, when playing against this opening, the black player will develop his pieces and strategy slowly, waiting for his opponent to commit a mistake. The development of new opening theories has of course provided many possibilities to pursue an active and offensive game when facing 1.d4, but even taking this fact into consideration, the difference in dynamics between the positions arising after playing 1.d4 and 1.e4 is very obvious. 3. Center and pawn activity Regarding which move activates the most pieces, the answer still lies with 1.d4. By playing 1.d4 we activate two pieces: our king bishop and the queen, our most powerful piece, which immediately gains access and control to the center. If we opt to play 1.e4, however, we only free our queen’s bishop on f1. Every chess opening book claims that after playing 1.e4, the queen is also freed on the diagonal d1-h5. However, this is misleading since a player’s usual next move would be to block her with Nf3 followed by h3 in order to avoid being pinned by the black bishop moving to Bg4. The most usual and perhaps the only opportunity to move the queen on the aforementioned diagonal can arise when playing with an amateur and we checkmate from h5 or f3, or when using some dubious openings. In conclusion, if we play 1.d4, the queen supports the center providing control and stability (see paragraph 2), whereas if we opt for 1.e4 instead, the queen’s role in the game is rendered insignificant until the game progresses further. 4. Space The space we control is measured by the number of squares behind our pawns. 1.d4 is the best option once again. After playing 1.d4, one will usually follow by playing c2-c4, either in the next move or in the following couple of moves. The player will thus be able to increase the number of squares behind his pawns while at the same time he manages to control four squares in his opponent’s side (the side after the middle of the board). In fact, this is an excellent method to develop an ideal pawn formation (one pawn right next to the other) which provides maximum dynamic. On the contrary, even though such a formation can be developed after playing 1.e4 (the well-known King’s Gambit), this opening has been almost completely abandoned and is normally only played by more amateur players, since it ends up exposing the king – Ivanchuk had some good results with it lately though! 5. Weak Squares Every pawn move, regardless of how good it is for the game, will always result in several weakened squares behind and next to the pawn. The squares holding the greatest significance are usually the ones at the center or the extended center of the board. In this case, opening with 1.e4 or 1.d4 will have the same outcome. After playing 1.e4, the d4 central square is rendered weak, which will prompt the player to play c3 multiple times in order to support it and also allowing him a beneficial d4 push later, in order to eliminate this weakness. On the other hand, playing 1.d4 will weaken the e4 square, which may seem difficult to defend at first because, if we follow the same strategy as after 1.e4 (meaning that instead of playing c3 and d4 we play f3 and e4), we will immediately weaken the king’s position (we will have probably proceeded with a short castling by this time). However, this is not necessarily true; there are openings following this exact plan, such as the Carlsbad and Saemisch which are very respectable. Finally, in both cases, if the white player decides so, he can easily remove any control the black player may have gained on these squares by pushing his own pawns and exchanging them for those of his opponent. For example, after playing 1.e4 and e5 (or c5 in order to control the d4 square), the white player can then continue by playing 2.Nf3 and 3.d2-d4 in order to exchange his opponent’s pawn immediately. Playing 1.d4 can result in the exact same outcome. A great example of this is the Dutch Defense which focuses the black player’s game exactly around the e4 weakness. The white player can play 1.d4 f5, 2.Nc3, e6, 3.e4 (if 2. …Nf6, 3.Bg5 and the e4 comes back again). In conclusion, when examining these weaknesses, both 1.e4 and 1.d4 can have the same result. And my final comment on this issue would be that I actually have never preferred playing the Sicilian or playing against the Sicilian.So, 1.d4 is a great way to avoid that defense!The complex anti-meran or a good out of book Trompowski Attack has always been my preference as a senior master nad due to the facts that many of the d4 subvariations move out of book quickly as compared to a Sicilian or a Ruy Lopez with much of the game already defined 50 moves deep in the opening book dept,you can see why many GM's are favoring d4 over e4.And I am no exception in my past USCF games,correp games or at my club in NYC.
saintinsanity 26-Jun-14, 17:25	I'm still working on e4 Once I figure out every possible opening from there, I'll move on to d4
wrecking_ball 26-Jun-14, 17:35	Good luck pawntificator!Like I mentioned,its a matter of taste and choice.Depending upon individual situations(which vary from player to player),e4 can be better,but not necessarily in the "mastering study dept"relative to the King pawn opening as necessarily the "best" way to go. I was just the opposite of you infact.While others in my chess circles played the e4 games,I concentrated on the QP openings.I had so many e4 players scratching their heads on the closed positions of the d4 openings,that many of them resigned without making even 1 move against me in chess club!They said....playing Joe?No way,i'm not even going to try! Now that is psychological power at its peak finest!!!

GameKnot: play chess online, chess clubs, online chess puzzles, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, chess teams, free online chess games database and more.