1.d4 games are more positional in nature. Lower rated players (and a lot of higher rated players as well) prepare a more open tactical game. After all, why would someone want to go to the trouble of playing 30 or more maneuvering moves in a very closed game just to gain a slight edge (in pawn structure, ending, position of pieces)?
It is much simpler to play 1.e4 and aggressively try to force the open attacks from the word go. A nice combination that clips a piece is much easier (and more pleasing to the eye).
After you reach a certain level, you have to play the closed openings to progress in style though.
Any basic "How to Play Chess" book will start with 1. e4 because then they can show the first few moves of the the Ruy or Scotch or 4 Knights and a player just starting out will have at least some idea of how to start a chess game. What's the most common beginner reply to 1. e4? It's 1. ...e5 of course because that is what beginner books show to you. Another common beginner sequence is 1. e4 2. B-c4 3 Q-h5, not because it is best but because books teach that as the first "how to checkmate".
Just because you play 1.d4, that does not mean you are going to play a positional game. I'm not good enough to play a positional game. Here is one of my less positional games, at least some higher rated players thought it wasn't very positional.
I try to play the colle, but this person wasn't going to let me, so I followed a line from David Rudel's Zuke 'Em.
after 1300 games I decided d4 was better for me. It just depends on what your style is. Both have plenty of lines to learn to get good at. Both are still played at the gm level.
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromfics 1.d4 games are more positional in nature. Lower rated players (and a lot of higher rated players as well) prepare a more open tactical game. After all, why would someone want to go to the trouble of playing 30 or more maneuvering moves in a very closed game just to gain a slight edge (in pawn structure, ending, position of pieces)?
It is much ...[text shortened]... certain level, you have to play the closed openings to progress in style though.
My Opinion
I never play 1.e4 coz I hate to play against Sheveningen😵
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromfics 1.d4 games are more positional in nature. Lower rated players (and a lot of higher rated players as well) prepare a more open tactical game. After all, why would someone want to go to the trouble of playing 30 or more maneuvering moves in a very closed game just to gain a slight edge (in pawn structure, ending, position of pieces)?
It is much ...[text shortened]... certain level, you have to play the closed openings to progress in style though.
My Opinion
And on the other hand, with a minefield-like board full of pieces and rigid against flexible pawn formations, the satisfaction is by far more qualitative😵
The first learn to play chess type book I bought said to play e4 if you are a beginner as the games will be more interesting and you will learn more instead of being bogged down by heavily tactical games
Originally posted by wormwood I never play 1.e4 because I hate to play against the ruy, and I never play 1.d4 because I hate the nimzo. 🙂
then play the bishops opening, cuts out all that Ruy Lopez stuff, no need of learning crazy schliemann lines, nor any of that ultra solid petroff defence stuff either! or be bored to death with the Berlin defence! play the London with 1.d4 a la kamsky , no need of giving black the option of hassling your knight!
Why not 1.d4?
20 Jan '09 00:27
Back to Top