should i play 1.e4 or 1.d4 or something else?

Hi, there has been much discussion about the merits of each and this is not intended to be a favouring of one over the other, but i have reached a consensus in my own mind about the style of chess that i like and was wondering if anyone could help determine what type of systems i should be employing.

1. I like pawn play rather than piece play, pawns supported by pieces pushing for space and the acquisition of territory and minor advantages

2. I prefer a classical approach rather than a hyper-modern

3. I like to patiently deploy my pieces and use the attacking potential of those pieces to crack open my opponents position usually by pawn breaks (an example which illustrates the principle is the Colle, which i do not play but illustrates the point i am making for all whites pieces are patiently deployed to make the e3-e4 pawn push possible, 'cracking open blacks game'😉

4. I dont mind sharp systems but like to slowly manoeuvre as well

5. I prefer 1.e4

if anyone can throw any light on this, for it seems to me to be rather paradoxical, i would be most indebted - regards Robbie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
blah blah

5. I prefer 1.e4

if anyone can throw any light on this, for it seems to me to be rather paradoxical, i would be most indebted - regards Robbie.

play what you prefer...

Originally posted by trev33
play what you prefer...

actually i would play the Stiff little fingers variation, heard them on the radio today, Alternative Ulster, awesomeness, anyhow back to the chess, but I am looking for advise on any particular systems Trev my son, based on the criteria. i think i should at least try to learn one opening past the third move.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Hi, there has been much discussion about the merits of each and this is not intended to be a favouring of one over the other, but i have reached a consensus in my own mind about the style of chess that i like and was wondering if anyone could help determine what type of systems i should be employing.

1. I like pawn play rather than piece play, pa ...[text shortened]... this, for it seems to me to be rather paradoxical, i would be most indebted - regards Robbie.

Paradox.

If you dont play d4 or e4 then what is left is hyper-modern isnt it?

Have you tried Reti or Orang-Utang?

Hi wolfgang, i prefer to play classically with pawns in the centre supported by pieces. Reti rather interestingly is my favourite chess author, he writes, even by todays standards with a lucidity, in my opinion, unsurpassed. i prefer orthodox rather than unorthodox openings.

Hyper modern, as i understand it does not exclude the placement of pawns in the centre, they are simply delayed. I guess what in essence i may be trying to ascertain is 1.e4 systems that are positional in nature, thus the paradox, for they have a reputation for leading to open games with lots of piece play.

yes i see the paradox, perhaps i should change the title, oops too late, although one of course may include other flank openings which i dont know if they are truly hyper-modern, like the English, or the Bird, for they seek to control the centre with pawns rather than pieces. 🙂

If it's slow maneuvering you want you probably would do better with d4, leading to a more closed game.

To me, your first four points just beg for the Queen's Gambit to be played. Contrary to popular belief, there are a slew of sharp variations to play (Slav Defense, Botvinnik Variation, and I rest my case).

To get the "1. e4 feel", I would suggest playing through the 1. d4 games of the "tactical World Champs" such as Alekhine, Tal, and Kasparov to get a feel for how you may be able to have your cake and eat it, too.

Paul

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
To me, your first four points just beg for the Queen's Gambit to be played. Contrary to popular belief, there are a slew of sharp variations to play (Slav Defense, Botvinnik Variation, and I rest my case).

To get the "1. e4 feel", I would suggest playing through the 1. d4 games of the "tactical World Champs" such as Alekhine, Tal, and Kasparov to get a feel for how you may be able to have your cake and eat it, too.

Paul

yes this is brilliant Paul, its how you say that '1.e4 feel', you know, the crisp edginess, not stodgy, but clean and precise. Actually i have played through lots of queens gambit games, probably more than any other in fact through a course on strategy that have just completed written by the brilliant Alex Bartashnikov. I also like to attack through the centre and on the queen-side as with Sicilian.

Originally posted by JDChess
If it's slow maneuvering you want you probably would do better with d4, leading to a more closed game.

mmm, yes its a good shout, but are there no 1.e4 systems that one may attack on the queen side and through the centre. i dont really like completely closed games.

I also like to attack through the centre and on the queen-side as with Sicilian.[/b]

And here's some additional food for thought: In many lines of the Sicilian, Black's goal is to follow up ...c5 with the move ...d5, which almost always equalizes when it can be carried out. Some English Opening players play 1. c4 with an early d4 with that idea in mind, with the extra tempo. Of course, Queen's Gambit players get that in the first two moves.

IM Craig Pritchett has written an excellent book entitled Play the English with that kind of style in mind, and he says in the intro that he wrote it specifically for players like him who were moving to 1. c4 from 1. e4, and who still wanted a full-blooded, combative opening.

You have some quality options, that's for sure.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
mmm, yes its a good shout, but are there no 1.e4 systems that one may attack on the queen side and through the centre. i dont really like completely closed games.

Playing the Grand Prix attack gets the board opened up quick and early fireworks!😏

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Playing the Grand Prix attack gets the board opened up quick and early fireworks!😏

Yes Grand Prix is ok, if black knows what he is doing he should be ok, rather interesting is a Grand Prix attack with reversed colours against whites 1.c4 i prefer not to attack directly the king, unless of course tactics allow, but a slow build, through the centre and on the queen side. , Although i do like some systems, bishops opening for example where white manages to swap off the dark squared bishop for a knight and manages to get in f4, taking the dark squares.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
And here's some additional food for thought: In many lines of the Sicilian, Black's goal is to follow up ...c5 with the move ...d5, which almost always equalizes when it can be carried out. Some English Opening players play 1. c4 with an early d4 with that idea in mind, with the extra tempo. Of course, Queen's Gambit players get that in the first two m ...[text shortened]... wanted a full-blooded, combative opening.

You have some quality options, that's for sure.

i see, perhaps something like the Catalan might be the baby for me 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i see, perhaps something like the Catalan might be the baby for me 🙂

I have always thought of the Catalan as a Gruenfeld or an Accelerated Dragon, but with colors reversed, and white starting out achieving one strategic objective that it takes black many moves to accomplish, if at all.

A little esoteric, I know, but thinking like that keeps me from getting to stereotyped about the game.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
mmm, yes its a good shout, but are there no 1.e4 systems that one may attack on the queen side and through the centre. i dont really like completely closed games.

Well in the ruy lopez you can often play a4 attacking the b5 pawn and start an attack on the queenside that way. Look at Fischer's win in 92 using that exact motif. I forget which game it was.