Why not 1.d4?

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Your teacher is stuck in the 1970s when Fischer's rhetoric had not yet been subjected to database analysis. New in Chess has demonstrated that 1.d4 is best by test.

I've been playing 1.d4 far longer than I've had a rating, although I play 1.e4 plenty too. My basic rule, which applies less than 80% of the time: against lower rated players, 1.e4; against higher rated players, 1.d4.

I took Fischer's words to heart and have very rarely played anything but 1. e4. I've tried some 1.c4 here with decent results, however.

At this point, learning to play against the various 1 d4 defenses would be too time consuming. There's enough work to do with 1 e4 though I even try to limit that by using the King's Indian Attack against most 1 e4 defenses.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I took Fischer's words to heart and have very rarely played anything but 1. e4. I've tried some 1.c4 here with decent results, however.

At this point, learning to play against the various 1 d4 defenses would be too time consuming. There's enough work to do with 1 e4 though I even try to limit that by using the King's Indian Attack against most 1 e4 defenses.

1. d4 openings are not as varied as 1. e4 openings, they often look pretty similar and tend to be pretty closed, apart from uncommon openings like QGA and Benko Gambit.

Many players refuse to play 1-d4 and or 1 -c4 ,and others refuse to play 1- e4 and 1-nf3,however there are many possible reasons for these decisions which can include insufficent knowledge or a personal liking for particular openings and variations of openings.However in order to obtain a more complete knowledge and understanding of chess in general it is necessary to know all or atleast most of the main variations playable with 1- c4/d4/e4/f4/nf3 and nc3. Only in this way is a player more fully equiped to be able to play more correctly,regardless of which openings the may face from their opponents--------😵

Originally posted by RECUVIC
Many players refuse to play 1-d4 and or 1 -c4 ,and others refuse to play 1- e4 and 1-nf3,however there are many possible reasons for these decisions which can include insufficent knowledge or a personal liking for particular openings and variations of openings.However in order to obtain a more complete knowledge and understanding of chess in general it is n ...[text shortened]... to play more correctly,regardless of which openings the may face from their opponents--------😵

In OTB, I prefer to follow the KISS rule. Knowing a few openings really well is vastly preferable to having a limited knowledge of many openings. Study time should reflect that.

Originally posted by Meadows
Just to flog a dead horse, I left Fritz to analyse the opening position for 3 hours. Here's what it came up with:

1. Queen's Gambit Accepted
2. Ruy Lopez\Berlin Defence\Classical Variation
3. Queen's Gambit Declined
4. Queen's Pawn Opening
5. Benko's Opening
6. King's Indian Defence
7. Reversed Sicilian
8. Anderssen's Opening
9. London System (is 4. Bg2 Bb4+ 5. Nc3 d4 6. a3 Be7 7. Ne4 Nf6 8. Nxf6+ Bxf6 9. O-O O-O 10. c4 (-0.15)

Hi Meadows.

Did you nobble the opening database like I suggested?

Give it one choice and 30 minutes, no opening book?

Re the 1.e4 v 1.d4 debate.

Morphy played 1.e4 - end of argument.

If Morphy was a d4 player the Morphy v Allies at the Opera game
would have gone something like this:

1. d4 d6 2. e4 e5 3. Nf3 Bg4



etc...etc...

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Meadows.

Did you nobble the opening database like I suggested?

Give it one choice and 30 minutes, no opening book?

Yeah, unless I missed another suggestion that was just analysis without an opening book (but for 3 hours instead of 30 minutes) from the initial position.

Boom!
Another one bites the dust!
Game 5904059

Ouch! 🙂

I don't play e4. I play f3 or g4, most people are too retarded to play e5 though.