e4 vs d4

Originally posted by Korch
1.d4 d5 would be so obviously worse for black could you explain why top GMs don`t mind to play 1.d4 d5 as Black and why they play not only 1.d4 ?

At this point, it's probably not worth trying to explain it to him or change his opinion. Let him skimp out on one of the greatest, most complicated, and most interesting branches out of the openings lexicon. My time is better spent elsewhere.

His posts are even funnier to me now, since judging by his game history here (or lack there of), he came here to debate this point specifically. Har dee har har.....😀

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Do you fear it beetle my trusty feer, or does the whitey have no reason to regret his choice?

I think that the Englund is not sound because the White just continues developing with normal moves and he gets the initiative with tempo; however I have never played a CC game against Englund;

TONY am on here cos i play on uchess.... hence the name. true i don't play correspondance,. but i have played a few 1000 games on the site blitz ' brother ' if i'm not welcome here then sorry, they took the forum page of uchess ages ago ..and no i didn't join to make this post. just curious. I only found the data out today . am off work 🙂 try to be civil n i will to

Originally posted by Black Star Uchess
TONY am on here cos i play on uchess.... hence the name. true i don't play correspondance,. but i have played a few 1000 games on the site blitz ' brother ' if i'm not welcome here then sorry, they took the forum page of uchess ages ago ..and no i didn't join to make this post. just curious. I only found the data out today . am off work 🙂 try to be civil n i will to

dude its a public forum, you can post all you like , till youre hearts content, forget about those who are consumed by their own egos and who are too mean to impart their wisdom, there are loads of other dudes that remember that even they were once learners and have certain egalitarian sensibilities which comes across in a very helpful and non condescending tone, black beetle, paulbuchmanfromfics, madrook, greenapwn etc etc relax and post away!

Thanks 🙂

Not saying d5 is a bad move ... just it seems to get the worst results. ( by a few % ) I play it naturally then think ... darn what next ! have been practicing the queens gambit accepted but it still get knowhere.. and I notice e4- e5 games are much easier by comparison.
I guess e4 is a bit weaker beacase the pawn is a loose piece. ?

1. B4 is my favorite as of a month ago 🙂

"I think d4 is stronger, but more boring, and will continue playing e4! any thoughts"

Surely either can be boring depending on what lines you go down and how you play. I wouldn't agree that 1.d4 is inherently more boring than 1.e4...

As black against 1.d4 I think there is some real choice if you want to mix it up a bit; Grunfeld, Modern Benoni, Chigorin & Tango (1d4...Nf6, 2.c4...Nc6, 3.Nc3...e5)

For white with 1.d4...Nf6 you have 2.Bg5 the Trompowsky if you like something dynamic and unbalanced in less familiar waters.

For the dull/drawish lines there always seems to be ways of avoiding them.

there was a chap at my club who was adament d4 is best and only played queens gambit - was the only opening he knew . And he managed to get to bcf 150 in 2 years , quite impressive but he was so dull to play

Originally posted by Black Star Uchess
there was a chap at my club who was adament d4 is best and only played queens gambit - was the only opening he knew . And he managed to get to bcf 150 in 2 years , quite impressive but he was so dull to play

This is a dull game I just lost🙂

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 Be7
6. e3 h6 7. Bh4 O-O 8. Bd3 Re8 9. Nf3 Nc6 10. O-O Be6
11. a3 a6 12. b4 Bd6 13. Qc2 Qe7 14. Rac1 g5 15. Bg3
Bxg3 16. hxg3 Bg4 17. Rfe1 Kg7 18. Nd2 Bd7 19. Qb2
Bg4 20. Nb3 Bc8 21. e4 dxe4 22. Nxe4 Qd8 23. Nxf6 Rxe1+
24. Rxe1 Qxf6 25. Re8 b6 26. Bxa6 Rxa6 27. Rxc8 Ra7
28. f3 Ne7 29. Re8 Nf5 30. g4 Nd6 31. Re1 Nc4 32. Qc3
Nd6 33. Qa1 Ra4 34. Nd2 Nb5 35. Re5 Qc6 36. d5 Qc3
37. Qxc3 Nxc3 38. Re7 Rxa3 39. Nc4 Nxd5 40. Rd7 Ra1+
41. Kh2 Rd1 42. Ne5 Kf6 43. Nc6 Ke6 44. Rd8 Ne3 45. Re8+
Kd7 46. Rxe3 Kxc6 47. Re7 Rd7 48. b5+ Kd6 49. Re2 Re7
50. Rc2 c5 51. bxc6 b5 52. Kg3 Rc7 53. Rc1 Rxc6 54. Rd1+
Kc5 55. Rc1+ Kb6 56. Rd1 b4 57. Kf2 Kb5 0-1

To address the "I think 1. d4 is more boring" comment, I respectfully disagree. One thing about 1. e4 is that it tends to lead to some early tactical shootouts, but then suddenly peeter out to some equal ending or something like that. There are plenty of opportunities for incredibly sharp and complicated struggles within the 1. d4 complex, and I think that that's one reason why people have shifted to 1. d4 as "chess time" has gone on. It puts a lot more lasting pressure on Black and relies less on temporary dynamic factors. Some of the most complicated chess can begin from 1. d4. For instance:

Botvinnik Semi-Slav

Moscow Semi-Slav

Meran Semi-Slav

Grunfeld Defense (almost every variation)

King's Indian Defense

Modern Benoni

Nimzo-Indian

Dutch Defense

Blackmar Diemer Gambit

Albin Counter Gambit

Chigorin Defense

And the list goes on! 😀 Actually, it seems as though most defenses to 1. d4 lead to very imbalanced, complicated middlegames where exchanges are typically avoided (contrary to 1. e4). Maybe what's put you off is the QGD, but even then, you have the option of playing the Catalan instead, which is IMMENSELY complicated, both tactically and strategically. I'd say give 1. d4 a chance.

As an example, here's my most recent finished game. I played Quirine, a strong 1900 player here who plays a lot of games and is very experienced. It ended up being a sideline in the Classical Variation of the KID, and I played the opening very aggressively and incisively, decided to sacrifice a piece on move 15 for a raging attack. Maybe Black was already lost at that point!

Game 6063895

thanks for the game, looks like black got smothered a bit... i don't know if 4 d6 is better... sorry if i was going on earlier!

found another database on cm 8000.. here its less significant... says whites 3.7% more likely to win .. both are c 400,000 games

chessgames
white black w-b
e4 - e5 38.7% 27.7% 11.0%
d4 - d5 38.9% 22.7% 16.2%
difference 5.2%

cm8000
white black w-b
e4 - e5 39.3% 27.2% 12.1%
d4 - d5 40.1% 24.3% 15.8%
difference 3.7%

maybe the 5% was a bit high ... does look like e4 e5 are more equal... might mean d4 is less boring he he. but still hard for black.

Originally posted by Black Star Uchess
there was a chap at my club who was adament d4 is best and only played queens gambit - was the only opening he knew . And he managed to get to bcf 150 in 2 years , quite impressive but he was so dull to play

1... Nf6 is a more popular response to 1. d4 these days, the Slav is quite decent for black but the Nimzo is slightly better. I always play 1.d4 and tend to go for the Catalan to avoid the Nimzo. As black I don't play the Nimzo though, I usually play KID, I just like the fianchettoed setup.

This topic is so cliched that I'll quote myself from last year (http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=35215&page=4):

"Looking at Mega Database 2008, d4 scores about 2% higher than e4. However, what really matters is the performance for the best players and this is what vindicates Fischer's claim. 1.e4 is still best by test but ONLY if you go to a high enough ELO range. Using Mega Database 2008 filtered for the last 50 years for 2600 players, 1. e4 gives a performance of around 20 ELO higher than d4. If filtered for 2700 players, this grows to 30 ELO better. It doesn't seem to affect the statistics if it is for the last 50 or 10 years with either ELO filter.

This suggests that handling the advantages e4 provides may take more skill and study than with d4. e4 seems to concentrate more on fleeting advantages like active piece play and development while d4 takes a more methodical approach that often gives rise to static advantages like more pawns in the center or the bishop pair. This makes the edge easier to keep despite slight inaccuracies. Another interesting trend is that relative performance gain with White tends to increase with ELO. If anyone is curious about exact statistics, I can provide them.

As for me, I eventually ended up playing neither 1. e4 or 1. d4. Instead, I play 1. c4, a move that is statistically inferior to both. Although I try e4 and d4 every now and then, I still know far too little to feel totally comfortable with either."

That was too easy so I'll go on...

Unsupported categorical assessments about such logical moves like 1. e4 and 1. d4 are just silly. Even Sveshnikov, a strong GM is criticized for his claim, that 1. e4 has to be the strongest. However, at least he has some support beyond statistics from imperfect players. His claim is that 1. e4 adds more squares to White's control than 1. d4. Note that with 1. d4, White gets c5, d4, e5, g5, and f4. On the other hand, 1. e4 controls d5, e4, f5, c4, b5, g4 and h5 while also preparing castling. Moreover, Sveshnikov notes that with 1. d4, White has trouble getting in e4 but with e4, d4 can be easily achieved - leading to more aggressive placement of the pieces. The funny part is that others can make a similarly strong case for 1. d4. The only truth we know is that both moves are strong.

BTW: 1. d4 d5 is not bad for Black and actually does much better than than the analogous Ruy Lopez. The Semi-Slav scores almost 50% - better than the Nimzo/QID. MCO 15 even considers the Semi-Slav the most respected response to 1. d4. Other Slav setups also score well. The QGD (especially the Tartakower) and QGA do fairly well too. To highlight how surprising statistics may be if filtered for the top players, it's notable that the KID scores best of all but is played less than the Semi-Slav or NID/QID.

Originally posted by wormwood
I'd say general statistics on openings can be largely ignored. they only give you the information on how badly the unprepared opponents do.

instead, I think it's much better to take a specialist on any given opening, and see how well he does against his peers. often their performance in their specialty far exceeds the statistical average. and THAT ...[text shortened]... istics. put in more work than your peers, and you'll have the advantage in most of the games.

This is such an excellent point that I'm going to double post! 😛 Statistics shouldn't be used in a vacuum.

Moreover, players should avoid substituting statistics for in-depth understanding and evaluation of a position. When I was starting out, I was too weak to do anything else. Instead of seeing the subtleties and looking at what moves actually did, I would jump for joy upon finding a move that scored 5% better from a good sample of games by strong players. Meanwhile... I learned next to nothing about chess because I was not trying to comprehend what was going on.