Play the Queen's Gambit finally arrived today, and I am very pleased with it. Looking through it, one of the lines that Ward says which I found particularly interesting was this:
"Actually it really bugs me when 1.e4 players call 1.d4 boring, when the majority of their games are probably outings in the Petroff Defense or the Closed Spanish!"
He mentions this in the Semi-Slav section on the 7.g4!? Shabalov Gambit.
After reading this, I started thinking about it, and I think he's right. I actually think 1.e4 is more boring than 1.d4! I started thinking about a lot of the variations I was playing with 1.e4, and I settled on the fact that I only got tactical games against 1...c5 and 1...e5. And 1...e5 only because I played the sometimes suspect King's Gambit. With 1.d4 it seems that almost everything is sharp, if you choose. Everything against 1...d5 is tactical when you play Ward's recommendations in PTQG. And against 1...Nf6 white can either play the sharp and interesting Trompowsky, or hope to face the KID, Grunfeld, or Nimzo. The KID and Grunfeld are definitely tactical, and there appear to be some sharp Nimzo lines, like 4.f3!?. Am I right, or am I right? 😉
Originally posted by wormwood🙂
well, one of the biggest reasons why I moved to 1.d4 from 1.e4, was the desire to avoid the stale spanish games.
ride the big wave, woohoo! 🙂
I also tried the Scotch, but the lines really didn't look that interesting, especially compared to 1.d4 with things like 7.g4!? in the Semi and 3.e4! in the QGA.
I'd like to think that e4 is still the most tactical of all openings. I think our 'problem' is that the best moves have already been found up into the 20 move mark for many if not most e4 openings. Since most tactics are found at around the 20 move mark (I make this assumption loosely), a lot of e4 openings are becoming stale.
This doesn't mean the game can't have traps, tactics, and a ton of other fun things in it.
e4 all the way.
Originally posted by cmsMasterwe all 'know' that the QGA is such a push-over, but in skillful hands it's really a tough weapong to survive against. sure you'll crash your way in against low-rated players, but against people who actually know what they're doing, it can create huge problems. those q-side pawns really need to be watched.
🙂
I also tried the Scotch, but the lines really didn't look that interesting, especially compared to 1.d4 with things like 7.g4!? in the Semi and 3.e4! in the QGA.
Originally posted by wormwoodOh, it's tough, but it's fun! 🙂
we all 'know' that the QGA is such a push-over, but in skillful hands it's really a tough weapong to survive against. sure you'll crash your way in against low-rated players, but against people who actually know what they're doing, it can create huge problems. those q-side pawns really need to be watched.
I have the same book (despite not playing d4) and I agree with him to some extent. Both e4 and d4 are what you make them to be. The Petroff variation with Nc3 for example can become quite sharp after opposite side castling and White's automatic attack. The Ruy Lopez may often look stale but it has great latent energy and can quickly become very sharp. Still, on the whole, d4 tends to offer more closed and positional games than e4. Thus, it is usually less tactical. Of course, this is by no means a rule. But it is my general experience with playing both. I think this is also the reason that chess engines like Rybka tend to score about 2-3% higher with e4. (against other engines) The game is more tactical and they are thus better able to understand it and fully use the opening advantage.
Originally posted by Falco LombardiI always feel like, when I'm playing 1.e4, that the Caro-Kann is possibly the most boring opening ever.
There are also sharp, double-edged openings like the Modern Benoni that come from 1.d4 Also, there is the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit which is anything but quiet. Some lines in the QGA can get interesting, especially the ones with e4. D4 is not boring.