Why 2.c4?

I've been pondering this for a while:
- after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 black could play g6 going into kid/grunfeld setups etc.

Although c4 stops d5 and grabs space, it weakens the b2-g7 diagonal and you lose the right to support d4. To seek an advantage white is committed to playing in certain type of way. So why is 2.c4 the 'only line' at the top, top level.

Originally posted by plopzilla
I've been pondering this for a while:
- after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 black could play g6 going into kid/grunfeld setups etc.

Although c4 stops d5 and grabs space, it weakens the b2-g7 diagonal and you lose the right to support d4. To seek an advantage white is committed to playing in certain type of way. So why is 2.c4 the 'only line' at the top, top level.

In a KID white eventually plays e4. So much for the 'weak diagonal'.

d4 is already supported by the Q and again in a KID black isn't going to pressure d4 anytime soon. When he plays ...e5 the pawn will advance to d5 in short order.

Yes, white is committed to 'playing a certain type of way' but that happens in most book openings.

Originally posted by plopzilla
I've been pondering this for a while:
- after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 black could play g6 going into kid/grunfeld setups etc.

Although c4 stops d5 and grabs space, it weakens the b2-g7 diagonal and you lose the right to support d4. To seek an advantage white is committed to playing in certain type of way. So why is 2.c4 the 'only line' at the top, top level.

In the opening you are fighting for control of the centre (the squares d4, d5, e4, e5) and c4 helps fight for control of d5 (and b5). Also in 1 d4 openings it is desirable to get c4 in before you play Nc3 (obviously so that the knight doesn't block it)

Hi Plopzilla,

A nice question.

If you look hard enough one will find a weakness even at the strongest looking move.
Only Checkmate is the move without weakness.

As in all other aspects of the game you have to weigh up the Pro's and Cons.

"Although c4 stops d5 and grabs space, it weakens the b2-g7 diagonal and you lose the right to support d4."

2 c4. does not stop d5 (the Grunfeld).
The weakness of the b2-g7 diagonal is debatable.
The g7 Bishop is eyeing the squares e5-d4 and c3. (central squares).
Very often you will see White give up the b2 pawn and even the a1 Rook
to get that g7 Bishop off the board.

The d4 pawn does not need support, it is already being protected and it
is quite a hard to attack d4 with natural developing moves because
as White it is quite hard to make natural developing moves without further protecting d4.

The biggest gripe I have v 2.c4 is the unmentioned fact that the f1 Bishop
does not get it's famous square c4 and the a2-g8 diagonal and a minor
moan at the weakening of the d3 square which has undone unalert White
players on many occassions.

However experience (the study of the Games History) has shown that
White has more chance of holding his opening plus if he does not block
the c2 pawn with a Knight after 1.d4.
White places his piece ready to take (hopefully) advantage of Black's
eventual stab at the centre. d5 will result in a flank pawn being swapped
for a centre pawn, so the usual breaks are going to come via e5 or c5.

Also Black has a better chance of challenging White's centre if he
does not block his c-pawn with a Knight - of course there are always
exceptions, nothing is set in concrete - The Chogorin defence 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6.

[en]r1bqkbnr/ppp1pppp/2n5/3p4/2PP4/8/PP2PPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 3[/fen]
Black is shaping up for a quick e5 to resove the problem of the centre tactically.

So althoug after 2.c4...
"...white is committed to playing in certain type of way."

So does Black and by studying the games played by great chess players
and that is the only place we can look, we can see that the Pro's and Cons
favour White.

Though personally if I was a 1.d4 player I'd always consider 2.Nf3 as it
stops the Budapest's and other gambit.
Of course that rules out the f4 attacks v the KID/Benoni and Pircs.
(pro's and con's.)

There is nothing wrong with 2.Nc3


Tartakower played it many times as did Richter, Alekhine popped it
out a couple as of course did Bent Larsen.

Johnny Hector often played/plays it.

Loads of people on here will try it after seeing this inspiring game.
(we need a Johnny Hector thread and the chess publishing world needs
Johnny Hector's Best Games

J.Hecotr - Kirkeggaard, Politiken Cup 2006.

Thanks GP. My point is I suppose I can't believe that with modern analysis tools there is no other way to keep an advantage (other than perhaps 2.Nf3?)

e.g.

2.Nc3
2.Bg5
2.g3
2.Bf4

Hi Plopzilla

By ' modern analysis tools' I assume you means computers.

Remember these things look for the best moves from the other side
of the board as well. So it's not looking at playing a double-edged 'risky' move
no matter how difficult the position or tricky the position is to play.

If Jonny Hector had looked at his intended line of play with a box he would
have seen that Black would possibly equalise.
Maybe he did but thought what the hell I'm playing a human OTB.
Humans make mistakes.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Plopzilla,

A nice question.

If you look hard enough one will find a weakness even at the strongest looking move.
Only Checkmate is the move without weakness.

As in all other aspects of the game you have to weigh up the Pro's and Cons.

"Although c4 stops d5 and grabs space, it weakens the b2-g7 diagonal and you lose the right to support d4 ...[text shortened]... ed 8...Qa5.} 12. Bb5+ {Of course! Black resigned. 12...Qxb5 13.Rd8 mate.} [/pgn]

Thumbs up for Hector! He inspires what I play here on the site.

He has got me into trouble a few times when I tried one his stunts but
I often managed to dig my way out of it. My fault not his.

His Best Games would be perfect examples of how setting OTB problems
for your opponent wins you games. He is of course a fellow Latvian Gambiteer.

As long as the point is on the scoreboard I've never cared about how many
I lose in the analysis room.
99.99% of Chess games are won because one player has or is the last to blunder.
(that 00.01% is reserved for the players who have resigned in won positions.)

"He inspires what I play here on the site."

You are not kidding either. You have had this as White quite a few times.


And you do know that twice you have gone onto to lose from here
in exactely the same way.

Paul Leggett - ChessChuckles RHP July 2011 Game 8548896
Paul Leggett - grahamhammer RHP August 2011 Game 8606696



If anybody says you cheat on here Paul just direct them to this thread this is proof you don't.

Rookguy has also followed this game and he to has had the same position you resigned in!

rookguy - RookGrabber (brilliant name to play against rookguy) RHP December 2011 Game 8904079

rook guy won one from here.



rookguy - CalWriter RHP November 2011

Originally posted by plopzilla
I've been pondering this for a while:
- after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 black could play g6 going into kid/grunfeld setups etc.

Although c4 stops d5 and grabs space, it weakens the b2-g7 diagonal and you lose the right to support d4. To seek an advantage white is committed to playing in certain type of way. So why is 2.c4 the 'only line' at the top, top level.

The answer to your questin can probably be found it he book The System written by Hans Berliner. He says that 1. Pawn to d4 gives White decisive advantage.

Reveal Hidden Content

I think that 1.d4 is better than 1.e4 but 1.e4 gives you more chance of winning.

Does that make sense?