<Comment deleted by user>
1.e4!! +-
I was never an 1.e4 player, it was forced upon me when I started playing and never did find myself in a comfortable position.
Switched to 1.d4 and the Colle/Zukertort system and that was my haven for several years, until my opponents improved and it became too mild.
I think that in the end, we all do not play at the exact same level, and how sound an opening is really depends on your opponent, the Elephant Gambit is probably a poor choice but only if your opponent knows how to take advantage of it
Switched to 1.d4 and the Colle/Zukertort system and that was my haven for several years, until my opponents improved and it became too mild.
I think that in the end, we all do not play at the exact same level, and how sound an opening is really depends on your opponent, the Elephant Gambit is probably a poor choice but only if your opponent knows how to take advantage of it
It's like anything else, entirely subjective. A good opening is one that you know well and that works for you. Especially in bullet!
I like d4... e4 is not always open and tactical. Giuoco Piano, Four Knights (not that anyone plays that much), etc. Unless you play big, explosive, Evan's Gambit (or Fried Liver, my favorite) games, it's not that tactical and open I think. Not for sure, but I would say so.
e4 is the strongest one when it develops to Ruy Lopez.
d4 is basiclly the most use opening actually including the English, but, it doesn't mean it's the best one.
The fact is that whites always have advantage in the beginning and the theory just want to equal it.
Jaenich's gambit for gentlemans! :D
d4 is basiclly the most use opening actually including the English, but, it doesn't mean it's the best one.
The fact is that whites always have advantage in the beginning and the theory just want to equal it.
Jaenich's gambit for gentlemans! :D
Thanks everyone, a lot of interesting discussion here.
AbdAlSalam,I have problems with the Pirc for that reason, I don't know all the variations and there seem to be a lot of nuances and subtle differences. To start, there's the Modern and the Pirc, which in my mind are lumped together, but I know they're subtly different somehow, then there's all these variatons like "Black plays c6" "Black plays a5" "the "Gurgendizde variation" etc, and theory says we as White are just supposed to hang our pawns out in the center and wait for Black to attack them. I know it doesn't say that exactly and we're supposed to go for an Austrian Attack or a 150 Attack, but how are we to make this work when Black is playing against this same cave-man approach plan in all their games and has so much experience dealing with it?
It reminds me of the Grand Prix attack, the difference is the Sicilian player isn't playing against the Grand Prix attack in 90% of their games like the Pirc player is against this attack.
I'm so happy playing 1.b4 now, there's something joyous in opening with that. It's a feeling of freedom and knowing that I can put all those thick 1.e4 opening manuals aside. Also I think it will surprise my opponents. In all my thousands of games as Black I've only had the Sokolsky played against me a few times. The familiarity advantage will for sure be with me once I learn it. It's funny, when I play it against the computer it actually seems like the computer becomes confused. With all the other openings Rybka (at any level you set it) is pretty good about following opening theory, sometimes even up to move 15 and beyond, but when I play the Sokolsky against it it seems to run out of book moves much sooner. When I first started playing as White I was considering the Sokolsky but I saw a Roman Dzindzichashvili video on youtube saying "this is an opening that can't be recommended", well Dzindzi also said that about the Budapest Gambit and I've been using that with much success, the Budapest has actually been my most successful opening. Why is this? I think it has to do with the familiarity, with the Budapest Gambit it's likely the Black player will know more about it than White. Just as with the Sokolsky, it's very likely the White player using it will know much more about it than his opponent, even moreso than the Budapest.
I did try the Ruy Lopez when I was playing 1.e4, but it seemed as if every Black player had their own line against it they'd been playing for years, sometimes for decades and since they were little kids, growing up on the Ruy Lopez. How can I playing e4 for six months beat people in this opening they grew up with? I also heard "you should play and learn the Italian Game first before you play the Ruy Lopez." So to even play the Ruy Lopez you have to learn another opening first.
AbdAlSalam,I have problems with the Pirc for that reason, I don't know all the variations and there seem to be a lot of nuances and subtle differences. To start, there's the Modern and the Pirc, which in my mind are lumped together, but I know they're subtly different somehow, then there's all these variatons like "Black plays c6" "Black plays a5" "the "Gurgendizde variation" etc, and theory says we as White are just supposed to hang our pawns out in the center and wait for Black to attack them. I know it doesn't say that exactly and we're supposed to go for an Austrian Attack or a 150 Attack, but how are we to make this work when Black is playing against this same cave-man approach plan in all their games and has so much experience dealing with it?
It reminds me of the Grand Prix attack, the difference is the Sicilian player isn't playing against the Grand Prix attack in 90% of their games like the Pirc player is against this attack.
I'm so happy playing 1.b4 now, there's something joyous in opening with that. It's a feeling of freedom and knowing that I can put all those thick 1.e4 opening manuals aside. Also I think it will surprise my opponents. In all my thousands of games as Black I've only had the Sokolsky played against me a few times. The familiarity advantage will for sure be with me once I learn it. It's funny, when I play it against the computer it actually seems like the computer becomes confused. With all the other openings Rybka (at any level you set it) is pretty good about following opening theory, sometimes even up to move 15 and beyond, but when I play the Sokolsky against it it seems to run out of book moves much sooner. When I first started playing as White I was considering the Sokolsky but I saw a Roman Dzindzichashvili video on youtube saying "this is an opening that can't be recommended", well Dzindzi also said that about the Budapest Gambit and I've been using that with much success, the Budapest has actually been my most successful opening. Why is this? I think it has to do with the familiarity, with the Budapest Gambit it's likely the Black player will know more about it than White. Just as with the Sokolsky, it's very likely the White player using it will know much more about it than his opponent, even moreso than the Budapest.
I did try the Ruy Lopez when I was playing 1.e4, but it seemed as if every Black player had their own line against it they'd been playing for years, sometimes for decades and since they were little kids, growing up on the Ruy Lopez. How can I playing e4 for six months beat people in this opening they grew up with? I also heard "you should play and learn the Italian Game first before you play the Ruy Lopez." So to even play the Ruy Lopez you have to learn another opening first.
No I really can't play the Ruy Lopez, it's not the strongest. Everyone knows it and I just don't use it.
There's no tangible difference in advantage for White against the Berlin, Petroff, or Sicilian than in the Slav, Nimzo or Grunfeld.
Just relax and learn the basics of both 1.e4 and 1.d4, and then choose the one you like the most to build a White repertoire upon.
I enjoyed both, but chose 1.e4 for my repertoire.
Just relax and learn the basics of both 1.e4 and 1.d4, and then choose the one you like the most to build a White repertoire upon.
I enjoyed both, but chose 1.e4 for my repertoire.
Play a position in which you feel at home and which you enjoy playing. I watch players using 'fashionable' lines which are popular with the top grandmasters, busting out 20+ moves of memorized home prep, after which they have no clue what to do due to the complexity of the position or due to a move by the opponent which isn't a book move. But hey, the top GM's play these lines so they must be perfectly sound and playable, right?
My advice would be to primarily study middlegame and endgame positions which are likely to appear after your opening of choice and study an opening line which comes naturally to you with white and a line against the main responses of white with the black pieces. For example, if you know you're completely at home in wild positions and have a keen eye for tactics, give the gambits a try. They might not be as sound as Exchange Variations in the Slav, but your ROI will definitely be higher.
My advice would be to primarily study middlegame and endgame positions which are likely to appear after your opening of choice and study an opening line which comes naturally to you with white and a line against the main responses of white with the black pieces. For example, if you know you're completely at home in wild positions and have a keen eye for tactics, give the gambits a try. They might not be as sound as Exchange Variations in the Slav, but your ROI will definitely be higher.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.