< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Jan-14-04|| ||square dance: <ughaibu> i knew that one was coming.lol |
|Jan-14-04|| ||D.A. KALIM: What is the FUSS guys? everyone knows that it doesn't matter whether e4 or d4 is the strongest(WEAKEST)initial move its advantages could never be assess in one single move and i truly dont care want fritz says. I don't mine playing e4 or d4 what matters is how you play the game and winning it.its rather bit silly arguing over a nonsensical topic. if i may suggest why not go it over a board.i'm sure its a more interesting and rewarding. :-) |
|Jan-14-04|| ||ughaibu: D.A.KALIM: To your "i'm sure its a more interesting and rewarding" I would just like to add for completion, "to choose d4 not e4." |
|Jan-14-04|| ||refutor: it's definitely easier for white to steer the game to "boring" channels in 1.e4, but then again there is nothing comparable to the king's gambit when you open 1.d4 ;) (i know that one will open the floodgates) |
<Btw, the Four Knights is definitely
up there on the list of top 5 most boring openings. >
there's a very easy way to liven things up in the four knights...winawer's 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 f5!? at best it's a reversed KGA (4.exf5) , at worst it's a schliemann ruy lopez (4.Bb5).
|Jan-14-04|| ||ughaibu: Also Rubinstein's variation: Belitzmann vs Rubinstein, 1917 |
|Jan-14-04|| ||technical draw: How about this idea. When Wikj is over lets see how many games were played E4 vs D4. And the how many were lost of each. We would then have some sort of mathematical idea as to which one is "better". I, of course, have my favorite: I play only 1.e4. |
|Jan-14-04|| ||AdrianP: <td> good idea... one thing I'm wondering is why no-one is playing d4 against Svidler... his main reply is the Grunfeld which is, as I understand things, going through a bit of a theoretical bashing at the moment. Playing e4 against Svidler is just walking into his areas of expertise (being an exclusive e4 player himself) |
|Jan-14-04|| ||refutor: actually in 2003 he played the king's indian against 1.d4 http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... |
|Jan-14-04|| ||AdrianP: <Refutor> I count 5 Grunfelds and 3 KIDs in 2003: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...|
I'd have thought that d4 players would be lining up to have a crack at the King's Indian.
|Jan-14-04|| ||Reisswolf: This is unfathomable! In Game 6 of the 1960 World Championship, Tal sacrificed a donkey in spectacular fashion to create complications through which the reigning World Champion could not navigate. But that game has received four comments!|
This game--nothing more than an inconsequential draw between two mid-low level grandmasters--is headed towards four pages of kibitzing, simply because of an argument about "which is best."
I think making this sort of comparison is human nature. I have seen in in almost every facet of life. Subconsciously, we all want the reinforcement that what we do, or think, or wear, or eat, is the best. I play the guitar, and I have heard numerous discussions about whether "Fender is better than Gibson, or Ibanez is better than Parker"--even whether one style of music is better than another! And in mathematics, I have heard many discussions among graduate students about whether pure mathematics is better than applied mathematics.
The list goes on. This discussion just adds to it!
|Jan-14-04|| ||ughaibu: How about arguing about which world championship had the best "game 6"? |
|Jan-14-04|| ||Reisswolf: Or whether the Alekhine-Bogolyubov matches deserved to be called World Championships in the first place? |
|Jan-14-04|| ||tamar: Fischer-Spassky 1972 1 c4! |
|Jan-14-04|| ||PinkPanther: <this is exactly my point about 1.d4. you found 10 people(plus more probably) that use it all of the time, but that leaves how many out of the top 100 that either use both or 1.e4 exclusively? the vast majority it seems.>|
I was only naming some of the very best out of the top 100, not everybody. If you researched the entire top 100 you'd probably find AT LEAST 30 players or so who play nothing but d4. Granted it's less than strictly e4 players, but it's not as rare as you're saying that it is.
|Jan-14-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: An interesting thing is that there are very strong players who are 1.d4 fanatics as well- like famous opening theoretician Gruenfeld, who never played 1.e4. When asked why, he said he did not make mistakes in the opening. ;-) |
|Jan-14-04|| ||TheGunslinger: Chess is a matter of taste, obviously players who play 1. d4 are going to think it stronger than 1. e4 and vica versa. In the end, you will pick 1. e4 or 1. d4 (1. c4) based on what type of middlegame and endgame positions you enjoy playing. And I don't mean a tactical or positional middlegame or endgame, there are plenty of tactical 1. d4 lines as well as positional 1. e4 lines. Personally I almost always open with 1. e4, not because I think it is "better" or is "best by test", I play it because I enjoy the positions that arise from all of Black's defenses. I also play 1. d4 on occasion because I enjoy positions reached from certain 1. d4 openings like lines in the Slav. It's all a matter of taste. |
|Jan-14-04|| ||Sneaky: Korchnoi said, about the strengths of 1.e4 vs 1.d4, words to this effect: "I consider both moves of equal value, but e4 produces more forced variations and requires more memorization, while d4 offers more scope for the strategic player." |
Myself, I play 1.d4 because when I started to take chess seriously, Kasparov was the world champion, and he played 1.d4 exclusively. I wanted to be just like him. These days I play it because I've spent so much effort to learn so very little about d4 openings that I fear I'm getting too old to start over. ;-)
|Jan-14-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: ??? Kasparov didn't play 1. d4 exclusively... He played 1. d4, 1. e4, and 1.c4!!! Oh well, it's for the best I guess, it would suck if you took his approach and learned all three. ;-) |
|Jan-15-04|| ||Sneaky: OK, maybe not "exclusively", but Kasparov switched to 1.d4 when he played Karpov in the 80's. Throughout the eighties he occasionally played 1.e4 (especially at simuls and exhibitions) but he was still very much a 1.d4 player. Only in the 90's did he became a true switch-hitter. |
|Jan-15-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: Okay, at least we clarified that. |
|Jan-15-04|| ||Helloween: Nice to see some excited talk here. Anyway, I'd have to agree with you,<square dance>, on the fact that compared to Fischer, I am a HUGE patzer. I don't think anyone rated 1775 could be anything but a patzer compared to Fischer.|
Here are some interesting stats compiled from thousands of games throughout history: 1.d4 has a 58% positive score, and is played by players with an average ELO of 2576 and performs at an average of 2624. 1.c4 also has a 58% score, played by ELO 2587 players with a performance of 2630. 1.e4 has a 57% score, played by 2566 averaged players, and performs at a rating of 2618. 1.e4 is statistically weaker.
Also, when I said that 1.e4 is weaker than 1.d4, I didn't mean by a landslide as some of you may believe. I meant it is very SLIGHTLY weaker and 1.d4 or 1.Nf3 are simply my personal preferences. I play them about 80% of the time and I play 1.e4 about 15% of the time. But 1.e4 is still a very strong move. I just feel that dogmatic thinking(in life as well as chess) and EXCLUSIVE playing of 1 opening is a ridiculous principle, and one must be well versed in all aspects of opening theory in order to play at higher levels.
On a humorous note, I know almost all of the 1.e4 opening lines like the back of my hand because I used to play it for so long, whereas I am only very familiar with about 75% of the major lines in the 1.d4 systems.
Also, <square dance>, I have about equal success against 1.d4 as I do against 1.e4 as Black, maybe I score slightly better against 1.d4 in fact, because most players are just starting out with it and don't know the systems as well as they do with 1.e4. I believe this is because most books and chess media are so biased and pro-1.e4, since it appeals to beginners.
|Jan-15-04|| ||Phoenix: Interesting note is that 1.d4 and 1.c4 have the same winning % but 1.c4 has the higher avr rating! Maybe 1.c4 is better than 1.e4 or 1.d4!! ;-) |
|Jan-15-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: Yeah, but 1. g4! is even better statistically. That's it, I'm sorry, all the other opening moves are obsolete now. We must all play the Grob now. Join us! Join the dark side!!! Resistance is futile! Muhahahahah. ;-) |
|Jan-15-04|| ||TheGunslinger: Well, according to this database 1. Na3 scores 100% from 1 game, for all of you that are looking at statistics rather than the positions why don't you all just start playing 1. Na3 :-P |
|Jan-16-04|| ||Helloween: When looking at statistics, you have to at least be able to understand the fact that more than just 1 game is needed for conlusive practical application. More along the lines of thousands of games. 1.d4 and 1.c4 have proven the most solid mathematically, this is not arguable. But on a personal level, I believe the positions arriving after 1.d4 are slightly stronger, because White is developing without creating weaknesses(the pawn is innately defended).|
Also, I remember Kasparov once saying something to the effect of "When I switched to 1.d4, to my surprise, I realized there was much more theory than in 1.e4!"
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·