|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-12-05 | | Dudley: I think the theory required to play 1.d4 is more unified and more stategically similar than the theory needed for 1.e4. You can get similar positions from different openings which can be played on the basis of understanding rather than memory. That's what Chernev showed in his book "Logical Chess". Of course he was a big Capa fan and it was written before the Russians introduced the King's Indian. Still, with my limited experience it seems like White can more easily maintain pressure with 1.d4 than 1.e4. You don't have to put up with annoying stuff like the center counter, Philidor's, Petroff, etc. You do have to think positionally rather than looking for tactics all the time, and have good enough technique to finish the win when you have established a superior position. I think it's a good way to play, but too slow for some. |
|
| Mar-12-05 | | PinkPanther: Generally speaking, I play d4 for two reasons: 1.) I feel it's easier to gain positional advantages (space, control of files, pawn structure, central control), and 2.) There are just too many defenses to e4 that I just don't feel like playing against. |
|
| Mar-12-05 | | dragon40: <pinkpanther> I am the same! I play d4 because there is SO much that Black has against the E pawn I simply do not want to face and the myriad of complications that can result SO fast!
I like the D Pawn for the strategical reasons as you stated, and Im comfortable, and it suits my style better. |
|
| Mar-13-05 | | PinkPanther: Plus, as was already mentioned, d4 tends to result in more closed positions where tactics aren't the most important thing, which is good for me because I suck at tactics. |
|
| Mar-13-05 | | RisingChamp: Well I am a an attacking player and I love tactical slugfests,and I can state for what its worth that I am always much more pleased to see 1 d4 than 1 e4.The Budapest and the Benoni are attacking responses to 1 d4nd one cant really dodge these by playing something like the Alapin variation as with 1 e4 against the Sicilian.Like it or not if you want any hope of an advantage after 1 d4 Nf6 you have to be prepared for a tactical battle which is why I love to face d4. |
|
| Mar-13-05 | | FLCLlove: "Plus, as was already mentioned, d4 tends to result in more closed positions where tactics aren't the most important thing, which is good for me because I suck at tactics." LOL main reason I play d4 also... |
|
| Mar-13-05 | | RisingChamp: FLCL love out of interest,after playing 1 d4 do you choose to play a move order with 2 Nf3 in order to avoid Benko Budapest Benoni etc which are very tactical openings.Or do you play Colle Torre or any of those "systems".I would think with e4,one stands a better(!) chance of avoiding tactical slugfests because you can control the openings better.There are several quite anti-sicilians,exchange variations,Four Knights defence etc.Except for the Scandinavian I can see possibilites to play quietly in every response to 1 e4. |
|
| Mar-13-05 | | FLCLlove: <RisingChamp>No it's not because I don't want to play a less tactical opening, I just have played it for so long that I am stuck to it :) I have been playing e4 a lot lately but much prefer d4. See I actually play Benoni some...so no I am not afraid of a tactical opening. Yes I do play something like the Colle or Torre, here's exactly what I play Queen's Pawn Game (D05). |
|
| Mar-13-05 | | dragon40: As <PinkPanther> and I have said, you get the fair share of tactical openings whether or not you open with 1. e4 or 1. d4 it is just a matter if it is a Sicilian, King's Gambit or a Benoni, King's Indian.
Tactics are an intergral and necessary part of any game, you can just choose to minimize how deeply you delve into tactical positions...Strategy is also an integral part of the game and together they make up all of our Chess games. |
|
Mar-13-05
 | | Sneaky: <acirce> I love that quote from that Borik book, it's one of my favorite chess books of all time. Well done. |
|
| Mar-13-05 | | PinkPanther: The Benko Gambit and Budapest Defense aren't particuarly tactical openings. The only way the Benko gambit becomes tactical is when black starts landing cheapshots on the queenside due to the pins and such that his rooks create. |
|
| Mar-13-05 | | hintza: I agree, the Benko is really a positional pawn sacrifice rather than an attempt to create tactical complications. |
|
| Mar-14-05 | | RisingChamp: Okay you demonstrated that Benko isnt tactical,but how did you conclude that the Budapest isnt tactical? |
|
| Mar-14-05 | | square dance: did kasparov really use 1.d4 more than 90% of time? obviously i see that the book is from 1989, but i almost find those numbers hard to believe. and if they are true, which i'll have to assume they are, when and why did kasparov make the switch to using 1.e4 the majority of the time? unless im wrong about him using 1.e4 the majority of the time that is. ;-) |
|
| Mar-14-05 | | RookFile: I suspect that as Kasparov got older,
he developed the same sort of mentality Alekhine did. When Alekhine got older, he stopped caring about the absolute truth in openings, and just looked for some random tactical position to smash his opponent with his ability in calculation. My suspicion is that Kasparov felt the same way, and wanted to avoid long positional grinds which can sometimes happen from 1. d4. |
|
| Mar-14-05 | | PinkPanther: <RisingChamp>
It just isn't. Why don't you please tell me why you think it IS tactical. |
|
| Mar-14-05 | | tex: In Seville Kasparov opened with 1. c4 almost all of his games. In New York/Lyon it was 1. e4. He wasn't pure 1. d4 player in 1989, though he did prefer d-pawn in early 1980s. But, during his reign as WC he played 1. e4 more often. |
|
| Mar-14-05 | | RisingChamp: It is,it is a very complex tactical opening.Why do you think its not,for one thing its a bizzare looking gambit.Secondly lets look at the many variations. A)4 NF3 in this variation after Bc5 etc there is a highly complex tactical struggle usually where black plays a5 and ra6 whith the idea of Rh6 qh4 and mate I can scarcely think of many wilder lines than this,and the Nf3 variation is wildly tactical.B)The variation with a Nbd2 after Bb4+ which black need not even enter has a wild line which goes 1d4 Nf6 2c4 e5 3 dxe5 Ng4 4Bf4 Bb4+ 5 Nbd2 d6 6 exd6 Qf6 etc if you find this untactical I dont know what is tactical. C)1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe Ng4 4 Bf4 g5 is also wildly tactical.There are no good ways for white to keep even a glimmer of hope for any advantage without entering a wild tactical struggle.OK now you explain why you think it isnt tactical. |
|
| Mar-14-05 | | Dudley: White doesn't have to go into any of that -he can return the pawn and play quiet lines with e3, Be2, Nf3. |
|
| Mar-14-05 | | RisingChamp: You mean 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 Ng4 4 e3 or do you mean 3 e3 ok those lines arent very complicated,and the first has the GREAT advantage that several black players miss the fact that Qxg4 is threatened(and not just 1400 players either),but to define an opening as non tactical because there is one line where white can play quitely by relinquishing any real advantage,is stretching it a bit far. |
|
| Mar-14-05 | | PinkPanther: <RisingChamp>
Maybe it is tactical, just tactical crap. Perhaps that's the reason that I have such a plus score against it. Not to mention, in that line you gave, I don't know how black is supposed to play Ra6 without having it taken by the white bishop. But on a more serious note, I still don't find the opening particularly tactical, and as for your comment "it's a strange looking gambit" what the hell is that supposed to mean? Because it looks strange that automatically makes it tactically complex? |
|
| Mar-15-05 | | RisingChamp: Lol play it against someone who knows it and well see how long your plus score lasts,it is very far from being crap,otherwise there is no way Shirov and Short would have decided to use it against Vallejo and Karpov (Karpov-Short was a candidates final).The line which is very common,is 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e5 3 de Ng4 4 Nf3 Bc5 5 e3 Nc6 6 Nc3 0-0 7 Be2 Re8 8 0-0 Ngxe5 9 Nxe5 Nxe5 10 b3 a5 11 Bb2 Ra6. Besides EVEN if it is crap,that doesnt mean it isnt tactical. |
|
| Mar-15-05 | | Dudley: <Rising Champ> The idea that White controls the variations better with 1.e4 is also stretching it a bit. Maybe, if White is willing to learn seperate, usually unrelated lines in response to Black's many defenses. It's a lot easier on the memory to play various closed openings which may not be forcing, but have more related ideas. The debate about the Budapest is interesting, but if White doesn't want to play it he doesn't have to. 1.c4 or 1.d4 and 2.Nf3 avoid it completely. By the way, when you get to be a GM I suspect you'll find out it's just not good enough. |
|
| Mar-15-05 | | RisingChamp: Why GMs Blatny,Legky etc play it on a very regular basis and Blatny scores around 50% with it.Besides nobody would ever play an opening at a high level if it were "just not good enough" even analytically where is the line where it is falling short?The main problem is as you pointed out,one can just avoid it. |
|
| Mar-15-05 | | PinkPanther: Do you know what kind of openings Blatny plays in general? The Budapest is one of the lesser frowned upon openings he plays...not to mention Blatny is only like 2400, so I wouldn't use him as your star example. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
