Originally posted by greenpawn34 It also supplies an escape square for your King.
(1.e3 kind of stubs the toe of the Queen's Bishop and stops the King
from running to e3. 1.e4!)
What happened to 1.d4 is better because the pawn on d4 is protected, whereas the e pawn on e2 is protected by 4 pieces, and if 1.e4 it is now protected by nothing?
It is my opinion that 1. e4? is unsound in CC play, but is playable in off hand blitz games at club level.
Originally posted by ChessPraxis What happened to 1.d4 is better because the pawn on d4 is protected, whereas the e pawn on e2 is protected by 4 pieces, and if 1.e4 it is now protected by nothing?
It is my opinion that 1. e4? is unsound in CC play, but is playable in off hand blitz games at club level.
Berliner would certainly agree with that, he was convinced 1. d4 is a forced win for white. However, the stats suggest that most master level CC players don't believe it. According to my DBs, OTB about 45% games start with 1. e4 but in CC almost 60% start with the king's pawn. This may be something that is related to engine use in CC (engines like 1. e4 for some reason) but as far as I can tell the disparity extends back into the pre-computer era. Possibly it is OTB players being dedicated followers of fashion (Anand and co play Catalan and Slav) while CC players are less so.
I wouldn't go so far as to call 1. e4 unsound, but I think with each year it gets harder and harder to win games by forcing methods so often attributed to that opening.
If 1. d4 is the correct first move than I have a suspicion that chess is a draw.
If 1. a3 is the correct first move than the creator(s) of the universe have a Douglas Adams sense of humor.
e4 is obviously sound, but it gives black his best opening chances beyond an outright blunder by letting him choose the Sicilian. Other opening moves allow white to steer toward opening lines that are better for him. E4 surrenders the initiative.
In theory, at least. In practice, even in high level play e4 only reduces white's winning chances by a couple of percentage points. Play what you enjoy.
Originally posted by Raskolnikov123 e4 is obviously sound, but it gives black his best opening chances beyond an outright blunder by letting him choose the Sicilian. Other opening moves allow white to steer toward opening lines that are better for him. E4 surrenders the initiative.
In theory, at least. In practice, even in high level play e4 only reduces white's winning chances by a couple of percentage points. Play what you enjoy.
Obviously theory and practice are two different things.
Coming back to 1.d4 has me playing like an idiot. I'm used to an open game with piece activity, now I'm having to get used to a more strategic game, long term gains, etc. I'm patzering it up at the moment because I get my pieces all jumbled behind my pawn structure because I'm still in my 1.e4 mind frame.
Originally posted by nimzo5 e3 actually doesn't "attack" any central squares it defends squares as they are still on your side of the board.
Alrighty then, how about this: both 1.e4 and 1e3 exert force on one central square.
One other thing about 1.e3 as opposed to 1.e4, 1.e3 creates less of a weakness. Pawns can't move backwards which means that once your e pawn is on e4 it can no longer put force on d4 and f4.
By playing 1.e4 you are also helping to create a weakness on f2.
A pawn on e3 is supported, while a pawn on e4 hangs.
Originally posted by Thabtos Obviously theory and practice are two different things.
Coming back to 1.d4 has me playing like an idiot. I'm used to an open game with piece activity, now I'm having to get used to a more strategic game, long term gains, etc. I'm patzering it up at the moment because I get my pieces all jumbled behind my pawn structure because I'm still in my 1.e4 mind frame.
Either that or it is because you are playing 1.d4 which allows black to clog the center with replies like 1.d5.
Originally posted by Eladar Alrighty then, how about this: both 1.e4 and 1e3 exert force on one central square.
One other thing about 1.e3 as opposed to 1.e4, 1.e3 creates less of a weakness. Pawns can't move backwards which means that once your e pawn is on e4 it can no longer put force on d4 and f4.
By playing 1.e4 you are also helping to create a weakness on f2.
A pawn on e3 is supported, while a pawn on e4 hangs.
Just saying. 😛
Umm, the notion that 1. e4 creates weaknesses on d4 and f4 is more than offset by the fact that White gains space by the control of d5 and f5. A weak square is only relevant if it can be exploited and it is not at all clear that d4 and f4 can be exploited.
e3 however is just too slow to effectively maintain the iniative.
and on a sidenote I do not agree that after 1. e4 Black is able to always gain the iniative nor is it giving Black the best odds of winning as historical win % do not imply future winning %.
Originally posted by nimzo5 and on a sidenote I do not agree that after 1. e4 Black is able to always gain the iniative nor is it giving Black the best odds of winning as historical win % do not imply future winning %.[/b]
Poor choice of words on my part. I meant initiative in the sense of choosing a main line opening with better chances for white than the Sicilian.
And I think past winning percentage is a far better indicator of an opening's viability than any alternative method of calculating viability, barring some new innovation that isn't reflected in the data. The proof is in the pudding, as it were.
We definitely disagree about historical win % - IMO win % is simply a data trap for a CC player. You can't rely on the numbers being accurate to the quality of the position on the board.
Example line X wins 40 games between 1975 and 1983 then Kasparov uncorks an improvement that busts the line in 1987 rendering it a losing line now.
This is pretty common, particularly when looking at the evolution of the Najdorf for example.
Now an even more dangerous example is this-
line y is played 15 times with good results for white, however in the last game played in 2004 even though white won analysts published a refutation to it in the Informant.
I have been on both sides of that, or even worse when no refutation is published, a gm claims its good and then you play some engine cheating player who doesnt even know what opening their playing but finds a bust to the line by running rybka overnight.
Had that happen in a game where I was quoting Ivanchuk - Polgar 2008 Hoogevens, Polgar claimed she had a win and quoted a ton of variations (which I actually had looked at) and the engine cheat had busted her line without even being aware what opening it was or what game we were following.
historical win % is also heavily biased by the strength of the players - so you have to neutralize elo ratings - Kasparov played the Najdorf, so there alone Najdorf is going to score higher simply because Kaspy rarely lost games. Somehow I have a feeling if Kasparov had decided to play the Caro Kann the win % for Black would be markedly higher... just guessing.
anyway, win % is interesting, but I put very little value in it unless I have looked at the games represented by it myself. (and even then who knows..)
Originally posted by nimzo5 Umm, the notion that 1. e4 creates weaknesses on d4 and f4 is more than offset by the fact that White gains space by the control of d5 and f5. A weak square is only relevant if it can be exploited and it is not at all clear that d4 and f4 can be exploited.
e3 however is just too slow to effectively maintain the iniative.
and on a sidenote I do not ag ...[text shortened]... r is it giving Black the best odds of winning as historical win % do not imply future winning %.
Every move has its give and take. That's all I'm saying.
I really don't think which piece one moves at the very beginning of the game is going to make that much of a difference when it comes to wins and losses, especially for those of us who are not GM's.
There may be reasons for choosing to move the piece you choose to move, but that does not make the move inherently better than another move. That's all I'm saying here.
17 Apr '11 04:08
1e4!
Back to Top