Many people, myself included, have been convinced to play 1.e4 partly because of the well known quote by Fischer "1.e4 is best by test". However I've recently noticed an irony, which is the theory of playing 1.e4 and having to know what to do against all Black's choices is so overwhelming that most players avoid the mainlines regarded as best in order to use sidelines to anything Black does. Thus against the Sicilian "hey just use 2.Bc4 or the Morra Gambit or something to avoid the theory. Against theFrench "just play the exchange variation and avoid all the theory", against the Alekhine "just play 2.Nc3 to take them out of theory" etc. So we are playing 1.e4 because we think it's "best" but then we play second rate moves against anything black does against e4 and basically give our opponents equality out of the opening.
Even Fischer himself had to play the King's Indian Attack against the French because he (understandably) had trouble beating opponents in main lines they had studied and played much more than him.
Another reason people play 1.e4 is because we've been told "if you want to improve you should play e4 because it leads to open and tactical games", however, since playing 1.e4 I've had to stop studying tactics so much and focus a disproportionate amount of study time on opening theory. Here we see another irony.
I've read that "if you ever want to become a really good player you need to play the Ruy Lopez", is this actually true, and is there really any drawback in developing players not playing 1.e4 in favor of something more unconventional that would give Black less choice and cut down on opening study so we could study other facets of the game more?
I honestly think openings are a lot like diets. So long as they're half way reasonable objectively, the most important thing is adherence.
Far more important than what is considered theoretically most challenging is whether you enjoy playing the positions and understand the ideas and typical tactical motifs in the resulting positions.
For some openings that are considered theoretically most challenging, you get positions you might not enjoy or fathom, which is just bad for your chess, if for no other reason than that you will likely just start shopping around for new openings constantly.
I honestly don't think it matters much what openings improving players choose to play, so long as they're not completely unsound. In fact, even if they are unsound, it's better to play an unsound opening and enjoy chess than to play "correctly" and not enjoy it as much :)
Even from the perspective of just getting as strong as possible as quickly as possible, choice of specific opening is far less important than understanding and enjoying the resulting positions (if you don't enjoy the resulting positions, you probably won't spend the time necessary to understand them) :)
As you point out, I know a lot of trainers have claimed that starting with 1.e4 is the way to go for beginning players, but I know no one has done a controlled study to see if players really improve more rapidly by playing one opening or another in their formative years, so I suspect that is one example of "common sense" that just got repeated often enough that everyone started believing it.
Just play games, find your mistakes with the help of a strong player or engine, and take steps to avoid making those mistakes in the future. That's not as sexy as learning some new opening theory, and takes some hard, honest work (you have to be willing to admit your mistakes, and not rationalize them away), but it's far more effective.
Of course, ultimately chess is a game, played for fun (hopefully!), so I recommend choosing openings based on what you enjoy, not on what is supposed to be "best".
First off I don't understand why someone would only play 1. e4/1.d4/1.c4 in blitz/online.
Regarding what is best, I think modern theory has shown that many lines are possible and no single move is best, which is why we see c4, d4, e4, Nf3 all regurlarly.
I look at (basic) opening theory a bit like boxing. e4 is the straight jab, d4 the cross, c4 the hook. All are valid, all pose a different challenge to the other party. Now if someone can't box to save his life going e4 and following up with anything will quickly win, but otherwise he might counter with a jab back, or a cross etc... Of course this analogy shouldn't be taken too far, but there is something like that going on.
Again the analogy with fighting: Similar to how some attacks (e.g. like a full force low kick, A. Silva anyone?) should be part of a set up (jab, cross, low kick) some attacks (exchange sack?) need a set up to work against a good defense and timing is all. If someone is in full on blocking mode you can attack his sides, knees or try and punch through. Ok enough with fighting now, the point is: at basic level openings are like strikes; all valid and all usefull to know.
Thanks for the responses. I'm a relatively new chess player (I just started playing a year and a half ago, though I've been obsessed and have spent all my free time on it since I discovered it) For me the biggest problem has been learning all the openings, as I don't enjoy memorizing lines.
For a while I got around this by only playing as Black, but I finally had to play as White and I went with 1.e4. It has now been over 6 months since I started playing 1.e4 and I still don't feel comfortable. My biggest problem seems to be with the hypermodern openings like the Pirc and the Alekhine, where theory says you're supposed to make the "big center" pawn duo , and then go for some kind of cookie-cutter attack by opening the h-file. That attack has always seemed simple and naive to me, as the Pirc player is presumably dealing with it in all their games and has much more experience than the white player. Meanwhile, Black attacks White's pawns that he has hung out in the center,
I too am a believer in adherence to openings and not giving up on them, but I find the theory for 1.e4 is too demanding. I am looking into irregular openings now like the Sokolsky, which often gives a pawn structure I am more familiar with being a Sicilian player as Black, and used to giving up an early initiative to get a central pawn majority. I've already played some games with the Sokolsky vs Rybka (set at 1600 elo) and had success and a lot of fun too.
I dont know, Ive always felt like d4 was more complicated than e4, especially with all the indian defenses, and because of these complications things can get very messy and tactical. Of course some e4 openings can get complicated, but looking from the outside in it looks like things get simplified too soon or easily, making it harder to push for a win or real tactics.
c4 is more like a positional attack and not as sharp as e4 or d4, but it's equally valid as an opening. Look at the games in the Karpov vs Kasparov 1987 world championship match if you want a great instructional lesson on how to play with and against c4.
If you want to get really good at openings and the early middlegame, get Pawn Structure Chess by Andy Soltis. One of the best chess books Ive ever read.
e4 rules, hehe.
Thanks for the input guys. 1.d4 may be complex too, but I know there's the option of using the London and Colle systems. I was seriously looking into those. For now I've decided to try out the Sokolsky, I played another game with it against Rybka last night and drew, though I was in a winning endgame position and the computer evaluated the position as +5 for white. I knew I was better but for the life of me I couldn't see how to continue.. It was a mostly closed position where each side had a rook and knight. Part of the winning plan was to give up the open a-file I had by taking a pawn on b6 and actually let the computer come in to my position and take some of my pawns too. I was afraid of giving it this counterplay and so it was drawn. I guess this proves even more what we're talking about and to study endgames more than openings and all that.
Another problem I have with 1.e4 is I've got several books on playing it, and each author recommends something different to do against each of the defenses. Just deciding which variation to use against all of them is a chore in itself, let alone actually learning them. I'm thinking about using 4.g3 against the Pirc if I try 1.e4 again, has anyone here tried that?
I use Pirc's opening usually because almost people don't know it's variations and I get the "Kasparov advantage". Anyways, I don't recommend you the Pirc for long games: just blitz and bullet games. :)
I couldn't agree more with OneOfTheQ!
Although I still didn't reach his level, I'd definitely say the very same. And figured it out recently myself.
I also played 1.e4 a lot, to sharpen tactics as it often goes for open positions (transpositions not included). And I did, but at some point I was unhappy with my positions. I felt I reached a plateau and failed to see what went wrong.
Only then I started to play 1.d4 and studied some positional play.
Playing many different openings help to understand the purpose of each and then understand even better a previous opening you used to stick with.
In that way, chess960 is already cool in my opinion.
But as OneOfTheQ said, what matters is be happy with what you get from the opening and enjoy playing.
Have fun !