Originally posted by rotkOr the Old Benoni. 😀
I find it harder to crush weaker players (at chess club) who, as white, play d4, I often find myself in trouble, where as white with e4 I crush them in like 20 moves. d4 is hard to take advantage when they play the london setup or something similar.
(My choice against d4, by the way).
Originally posted by cmsMasterYes, you are right. The "e4 is more tactical" is just some kind of fix idea. I'd say they are about equal. The orthodox queen's gambit is dry, but so are many lines of the spanish tjigorin. The dragon is sharp, but so is the benoni, grünfeld or king's indian. There are simply countless of examples to counter each supposedly sharp or dull system in the other branch.
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 ment ...[text shortened]... and there appear to be some sharp Nimzo lines, like 4.f3!?. Am I right, or am I right? 😉
I really like playing the queens gambit, this is a QGA game. Game 3433513 To me d4 creates more exciting and more chances for good tactics. 🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by cmsMasterYou think so? The game can turn quite interesting after 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.ed cd 4.c4. I'm not quite sure how is this variation called, but it's pretty interesting, the game is open and lots of tactics can be found. Of course this is only my opinion and for some this may seem boring.
I always feel like, when I'm playing 1.e4, that the Caro-Kann is possibly the most boring opening ever.
Originally posted by kbaumenPanov-Botvinnik Attack, it's not too bad.
You think so? The game can turn quite interesting after 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.ed cd 4.c4. I'm not quite sure how is this variation called, but it's pretty interesting, the game is open and lots of tactics can be found. Of course this is only my opinion and for some this may seem boring.
[fen]rnbqkbnr/pp2pppp/8/3p4/2PP4/8/PP3PPP/RNBQKBNR[/fen]
My devotion to the King's Indian Attack is enough for me to adhere to e4. Is e4 or d4 more tactical? Some great arguments have been made for d4, which would make one say that it really comes down to preference whether you play the sharp game or the strategical game. After all, there's the Modern Benoni for d4, but also the Colle and Catalan. There's the Sicilian Dragon for e4, but also the Four Knights Game and King's Indian Attack.
Originally posted by cmsMasterOf course, there are interesting and boring lines in most openings. And there are plenty of d4 players who like to play interesting tactical stuff, just as there are stodgy, 'boring' e4 players. However, in my experience, it's a fair generalisation that naturally attacking, tactical players TEND to prefer 1.e4 while players with a quieter, more positional style TEND to prefer 1.d4 (or 1.c4 or 1.Nf3). Generalisations such as this are OK as long as you are aware that, by their very definition, they will have many exceptions.
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 ment ...[text shortened]... and there appear to be some sharp Nimzo lines, like 4.f3!?. Am I right, or am I right? 😉