Hello everyone!
For my entire chess life, besides experimenting, I've played 1.e4 and 1.c4 entirely. Recently, I've decided to switch to 1.d4 for a while.
I find that this opening, although slower and more positional, is really the best way to win a game against a tough opponent. Mostly all opponents have studied their responses to 1.e4
I find that simplifying many d-pawn openings into a drawing position is less likely to occur.
What are your thoughts? Who prefers 1.d4 over 1.e4 or 1.c4 and why? I'm looking for some insight.
Thanks.
>I haven't played 1.e4 in 5 years and I haven't played a double king pawn opening from either side of the board in that time too. I decided to do that after many years of playing 1.e4 most of the time simply because all my regular opponents in our club were so comfortable with king pawn openings that I concluded I should aviod these openings.
>My opponents became frustrated because we were always reaching positions that made them feel awkward. Five years later, they're still frustrated because they want open games and they don't get that from me now.
>They're even more frustrated when I open 1.c4 or 1.Nf3. When they open 1.e4, I refuse to play 1...e5 thus giving them the game they want. I have played entire games and won with my king pawn still sitting on its original square at the end. My winning percentage has gone up quite a bit too.
Hi everybody!
I started playing 1.d4 (QG) because when I have the Black I always meet 1.e4 with 1. ...c5, Scheveningen variation! As I were forced to understand better the Scheveningen I realised that this Sicilian had the same concept with KID: avoid an early contact with the White; get a solid grip by means of controlling d6 and e6 and also being able to advance with tempo these pawns; go for a chessboard overloaded with pieces and drive carefully for a strong midlegame tactical combinations; keep your pawn structure healthy and aim for a cool endame. Well, Sicilian is a jungle, and I don't wanna face such a tangled forest when I play with the White. Therefore Queen's Gambit became for me the ideal system; not only I avoid the Sicilian but also I have the chance to attack using a helluva data tested and approved by Big Garry, Bronstein, Alekhine, Gligoric, Rubinstein, Reshevsky and all them giants!
best regards
If you play c4 you should get to know the bottvinnik positions. If you are looking to lower the ammount of information you must know for an opening you can always play c4 or e4 and if you play c4 first then later push e4 and you will get good positions with either move played. I have played e4, d4 c4 f4 and Nf3. Not so good with f3 :-). Anywho as a d4 player you may encounter a lot of draws if you are unable to take advantage of your position. If you know how to attack well d4 is good for you, but if not it may be hard to win games.
When I first take up an opening I will play it with blitz. You will not see all of the quality moves that a good opponent would give you, but it will help you realize what lines you like and which ones you want to avoid.
Thank you everyone for your replies! They are very helpful.
As for playing 1.d4 I think that since I have not played it very much, I will be learning. My goal is simple, learn how to win with 1.d4. I want to gain a better understanding of how the game evolves playing 1.d4 as opposed to 1.e4
Black Beetle: Thanks for that info. I agree with you 100%. I am somewhat happy to avoid the Sicilian at this point.
1.d4 seems to offer logical positions with logical play. I think that 1.d4 can also offer a greater transpositional potential than 1.e4 for both sides.
kmac27: Yes, I am familiar with the Botvinnik System.
"If you know how to attack well d4 is good for you, but if not it may be hard to win games. "
Thats the reason I want to try out 1.d4 for a while to improve my long-term attacking strategy! 🙂
Originally posted by duecerfor sure, you have been more consistant with this when ive seen you play, youre getting better piece placement and less cutthroat lines 🙂
I'm not nearly the chess player that most of you are, but since I started playing 1.d4, my game has steadied out and I've seen an improvement in my rating, I also play 1...g6 and have done well against my opponents with it.
First up - welcome to 1.d4 - don't let anyone tel you it's dull.
"Play the Queens Gambit" by Chris Ward is a useful resource as it covers the essential elements of the QGA, Slav, Semi Slav and so on.
You may also wish to think about a line against the Nimzo 1.d4...Nf6, 2.c4...e6, 3.Nc3...Bb4, then 4.f3 or 4.e3 or 4. a3 will be worth a look.
And something for the Kings Indian which has a ton of theory but as white I think you can just
pick something you fancy depending on how you like to play and start from there.
The other lines that are perhaps less common but lead to very dynamic play are
The Dutch 1.d4...f5
The Modern Benoni
The Grunfeld
Benko Gambit
This isn't a suggestion to get lost in studying openings for hours on end but you might like to peruse some of these lines to get a flavor of what you may be getting into. I find the book "Mastering the Chess Openings" by John Watson very handy for this...volume 2 covers many of the critical (but not all) 1.d4 lines.
Originally posted by ChessJesterI'm actually I big fan of the English (1.c4), but I've also dabbled in 1.d4, especially recently. If you enjoyed playing 1. c4 positions, particularly those involving a kingside fianchetto, I would reccommend the Catalan to you. The technical line is 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3, but there are several move transpositions, of course. In fact, I've even been able to get some Queen's Gambit (Declined) games to transpose, which certainly makes life easier, regarding opening knowledge. You probably won't get much of an opening advantage, but you'll always have a solid position to work with.
Hello everyone!
For my entire chess life, besides experimenting, I've played 1.e4 and 1.c4 entirely. Recently, I've decided to switch to 1.d4 for a while.
I find that this opening, although slower and more positional, is really the best way to win a game against a tough opponent. Mostly all opponents have studied their responses to 1.e4.
I prefer 1. d4 because I don't want to deal with all the crap that goes with the Sicilian, and I prefer a quieter opening. The general consensus is that 1. d4 is more positional, while 1. e4 is more tactical. I also used to play a lot of bullet games, and 1. d4 kept me out of trouble in the opening.
Originally posted by LucarioThe London System (1 d4 2 Nf3 3 Bf4) is a good all-purpose positional system that is easy to learn. I have been playing it successfully in tournaments for over twenty years. Black can probably equalize with reasonable play, but the Londoner will usually reach familiar positions that may give him a "practical", if not an "objective" edge. Kamsky is the world's leading exponent of the London System.
I prefer 1. d4 because I don't want to deal with all the crap that goes with the Sicilian, and I prefer a quieter opening. The general consensus is that 1. d4 is more positional, while 1. e4 is more tactical. I also used to play a lot of bullet games, and 1. d4 kept me out of trouble in the opening.