I learned the Ruy Lopez and became extremely well acquainted with it super early in my chess career. While I don't regret learning it as well as I did so early, I wouldn't recommend a beginner trying to master the opening. There are so many variations and sidelines like the Berlin, Moller, Bird, Cozio, and then there's the whole exchange variation... However I can't say it wasn't helpful learning all of them due to all the important endgame concepts and pawn structures they contain. And besides, you have to learn it at some point to know what to do against the marshall attack :)
e4 is best by test if you are bobby fischer and had studied the encyclopedia of chess openings
twice, otherwise e4 is good for learning but white is at a disadvantage
-alekhine
-scandianvian
considered weak openings in theory but still one has to know them
-caro kann defence
-fren defence
even more problematic specially the french
and then you have to be prepared as well for e5
petroff ruy etc
or all the sicilians
being the closed sicilian not strong or at least without theoretical advantage, I heard,
same as alapin, they dont play the mainline as ms caro kann said and if they play the mainline
then black chooses the type of sicilian.
So in short I dont know whats the best move for white to play but I would say that after
e4 white is at a disadvantage from a practical standpoint at a lower than grandmaster level
or master level.
and then there are other opening which I forgot but still are playable even if considered weak
like philidor defence, modern defence etc
modern defence is not weak but I dont like it really
I dont know the open sicilian
but I feel that if one wants to play good chess, one has to be able, prepared to castle queenside
and use the e4 as an attacking opportunity with the rest of the pawns, otherwise I feel
that e4 is a weakness obtaining at most equality and bad for the endgame, less pawns in the queenside
black has the c file, another option would be white to castle kingside an attack with all these pieces in alekhine
style and then use the pawns in that side in the endgame a bit like kings gambit
but really this is all too difficutl so even if in the mainline of the sicilian white is ok,
its easy to believe that black will be more prepared in the opening, so whats you opinion on this?.
Same about the tarrasch defence for example in the french, really how much time does white have to
prepare for that in constrat to a french defence player
e4 gives plenty of options to black it only accomplish three things,
attack d5, attack f5 and open the bishop diagonal (queen diagonal gets closed with the knight on f3 and besides moving the queen early is generally not good)
f5 really not good, now lets forget about the scandinavian and assume its a weak opening,
then it does not trouble much black to lose d5 as It can do the same just by playing imitating white e5,
or c5 (attacking d4), or the other set ups with are focused attacking e4, alekhine, french caro,
so black has two options either to attack e4 weakness that is not protected or attack d4 weakness for white not having played that,
why is the sicilian good, well because it does both things, it attacks d4 with a bad pawn and then it attacks e4 with a good knight in alekhine
style (nf6) without having to move it twice and it seems there is a variation in the mainline of the sicilian where white has a knight on e4 and black
just plays e5 and white loses another tempo, white does seem to regain control of the d5 square but its not enough, i think its called the Sveshnikov of the sicilian,
so yes I believe its a myth that e4 is a good opening, its like white is in a hurry because if it does not play e4 it can not be played later,
well chess is not a hurry game, its about patience, so it sounds naive to me to think the initiative would be enough to force black to lose
or put him in an inferior position when the material forces are equal and also neglects that e4 can get attacked as well,
so what white should do, it should play c4 or d4 or nf3, I cant talk about these as I have not played those, maybe a couple of times only, so dont know much.
I like d4 and nf3 as they look natural moves by some reason I dont like much c4 although I think its strong, maybe because your king can only castle kingside
or you close the bishop diagonal (b5) or I like to have the option of playing c3, I dont know d4 seems like the most natural move to me.
its in the center, it has the queen on d1 the knight on f3 later supports it, maybe there is a benoni defence or a fianchetto bishop on g7 that could be the
only bad thing of playing d4 but neither of those look too good to me, so I will look at d4 in my future games at leat to understand it.
twice, otherwise e4 is good for learning but white is at a disadvantage
-alekhine
-scandianvian
considered weak openings in theory but still one has to know them
-caro kann defence
-fren defence
even more problematic specially the french
and then you have to be prepared as well for e5
petroff ruy etc
or all the sicilians
being the closed sicilian not strong or at least without theoretical advantage, I heard,
same as alapin, they dont play the mainline as ms caro kann said and if they play the mainline
then black chooses the type of sicilian.
So in short I dont know whats the best move for white to play but I would say that after
e4 white is at a disadvantage from a practical standpoint at a lower than grandmaster level
or master level.
and then there are other opening which I forgot but still are playable even if considered weak
like philidor defence, modern defence etc
modern defence is not weak but I dont like it really
I dont know the open sicilian
but I feel that if one wants to play good chess, one has to be able, prepared to castle queenside
and use the e4 as an attacking opportunity with the rest of the pawns, otherwise I feel
that e4 is a weakness obtaining at most equality and bad for the endgame, less pawns in the queenside
black has the c file, another option would be white to castle kingside an attack with all these pieces in alekhine
style and then use the pawns in that side in the endgame a bit like kings gambit
but really this is all too difficutl so even if in the mainline of the sicilian white is ok,
its easy to believe that black will be more prepared in the opening, so whats you opinion on this?.
Same about the tarrasch defence for example in the french, really how much time does white have to
prepare for that in constrat to a french defence player
e4 gives plenty of options to black it only accomplish three things,
attack d5, attack f5 and open the bishop diagonal (queen diagonal gets closed with the knight on f3 and besides moving the queen early is generally not good)
f5 really not good, now lets forget about the scandinavian and assume its a weak opening,
then it does not trouble much black to lose d5 as It can do the same just by playing imitating white e5,
or c5 (attacking d4), or the other set ups with are focused attacking e4, alekhine, french caro,
so black has two options either to attack e4 weakness that is not protected or attack d4 weakness for white not having played that,
why is the sicilian good, well because it does both things, it attacks d4 with a bad pawn and then it attacks e4 with a good knight in alekhine
style (nf6) without having to move it twice and it seems there is a variation in the mainline of the sicilian where white has a knight on e4 and black
just plays e5 and white loses another tempo, white does seem to regain control of the d5 square but its not enough, i think its called the Sveshnikov of the sicilian,
so yes I believe its a myth that e4 is a good opening, its like white is in a hurry because if it does not play e4 it can not be played later,
well chess is not a hurry game, its about patience, so it sounds naive to me to think the initiative would be enough to force black to lose
or put him in an inferior position when the material forces are equal and also neglects that e4 can get attacked as well,
so what white should do, it should play c4 or d4 or nf3, I cant talk about these as I have not played those, maybe a couple of times only, so dont know much.
I like d4 and nf3 as they look natural moves by some reason I dont like much c4 although I think its strong, maybe because your king can only castle kingside
or you close the bishop diagonal (b5) or I like to have the option of playing c3, I dont know d4 seems like the most natural move to me.
its in the center, it has the queen on d1 the knight on f3 later supports it, maybe there is a benoni defence or a fianchetto bishop on g7 that could be the
only bad thing of playing d4 but neither of those look too good to me, so I will look at d4 in my future games at leat to understand it.
http://en.lichess.org/3kJoPGD9#30
an example of playing not bad but not good either with e4
and losing the initial advantage,
I have lots, e4 requires a great understanding of chess, if you are ready go for it
you have to study each separate opening to have the initial advantage.
but I like e4 because its difficult.
an example of playing not bad but not good either with e4
and losing the initial advantage,
I have lots, e4 requires a great understanding of chess, if you are ready go for it
you have to study each separate opening to have the initial advantage.
but I like e4 because its difficult.
To; Motion...The encyclopedia of chess openings you refer to in post #22. in the day was called "MCO" "modern chess openings" I remember reading about a player who asked Fischer for some chess lessons. Fischer told him to study and learn the entire MCO...then come back. Quite a task...I know! I still use MCO 11th edition to look up openings...it is a very good reference, if you like chess books . :]
Just a interesting note about Fischer and P-K4 {e4} Fischer rarely played anything other than P -K4...this fact did not go unnoticed by the soviets when Fischer was to play Spassky for the title in 1972. The USCF 's magazine...Chess life and review had on its cover just prior to the match, a cartoon picture of Spassky and some other soviet players. It showed books and literature all geared towards P-K4 openings such as ruy lopez ,sicillian, french etc .The caption read..."but Boris...what if he doesn't play P-K4 ? Well bobby opened some of his games with P-QB4. A great psych job by the americans! :]
yes thank you Zugzwang69
thats exactly why I said it,
you need to put fischer into context
e4 was good for fischer because he was a monster in opening theory
much like kasparov, but these are very unique guys
who not only were intelligent but put a great deal of work.
I forgot to mention a reason why I think most people play e4, besides the light bishoup out
the castling and the costume of it
and it is the e column
yeah probably people start playing e like pieces going forward and then stick to it
with costume experience, when you start playing chess you have the feeling that the attack
goes vertical, and in a sense it does, in a bunch, but in a concrete piece like a pawn
the pawn attack sideways and its counterintuitive
I already mentioned in another post that the e pawn is the only pawn that is not protected
c and f are bishop and d by queen,
so what does the e pawn accomplish or why people play it, mainly because of the e column
because of the feeling of the space but this is really a false idea,
now the e pawn is true that can push to e5 but that generally is a weakness as black has two
options to counteract it when needed f6, d6 for example, being f6 a long term option available
and d6 more concrete, as black soon has to decide in the opening where his d pawn belongs
or how is it gonna develop it,
e5 what is e5? You have only e5 first if black does not play e5 and then if it does not
you arrive to advanced french advanced caro alekhine, etc
So e5 alone to me that Im not a good sharp player looks like a weakness, and if I have
d4 to support it, It looks like a liability
and talking about liabilities, I heard again that in the sicilian white does not know how to
play with his light bishop, in c4 is kind of useless only beginners play that although I may
be mistaken, you give black plenty of options like e6 d5, or just fianchetto on g7 or Nc6
which is what I played, so most people dont play bishop c4 in the sicilian
we already said that in the closed sicilian the bishop is kind of locked, it has a defensive
status like waiting, is that bad? no, but its not good either at least it does not show clearly
and opening advantage, so that advantage of playing e4 to liberate the light bishop is gone,
I may be confused I am a beginner but It seems they play bishop b5 and look to trade a bishop!!
wow how good can e4 be when in one of the most important mainlines, like the open sicilian
the najdorf black plays a6 and b5 is taken already, although I dont know if it belongs to
a knight tactic attack a bishop tactic attack, yes black may lose a tempo but really I dont know
the lines, (dont believe much in tempo losing with things like a6, b5) but I know there is an
important variation in the sicilian which is called the rossolino and its not the mainline
and white players play it, maybe there is a double pawn, I dont think so, dont remember
but even if it were a double pawn with an open rook file, that does not look too bad for black,
I think that happens in the grand prix attack, im totally naive sorry for mumbling,
but I have the impression that white players dont know or understand the sicilian.
Ok lets get back to the topic and forget about the light bishop liability,
so what I was saying is that people play e4, well I really dont know why, cause before I learned
the rules d4 looked the natural move to me and when I heard e4 was a good move It felt awkard to me,
then I started to playing following the advice and much of what I know belongs to e4,
but it feels that e4 is only good if black plays e5 and although the game may be equal
white is more comfortable as it has a tempo up, so thats probably the beginning of chess,
it may make sense to play e4 if your opponent makes e5, even if there is the berlin defence now,
but that was a costume of 150 years ago or about that, now playing e4 you have to face other things,
the game is not as simple simmetrical, so lets say for example we have an opponent that does
not play e5, then we have that potential move in our position but as I already stated
it does not make sense to focus on the e5 square if you dont have d4 control which is more basic,
What else? Even knight c3 might be more logical than e4 although it locks the c pawn and may get
a passive play, It looks like a very solid move, and then you can play e4 later if you want.
But I wanted to say another thing, its about the e3 square, that is the main advantage of e4
that is what you are gaining control of, it is not d5 as it is too far away and black will find
a way to play it if it wants like c6 e6, the main advantage of playing e4 is gaining space
its gaining e3, that is you are putting the center of gravity of the position in the e3 square,
which is doubtful as It could be in d3, because if You play d4 you have d3, (plus d4 as well as
It is protected) so yes e4 gets you e3, does not look like a big thing but I dont know what else
It gets you.
Say that you want to play e4 to open the position, to trade and put the rook on e1 for example,
quite logical this should be like the main strength, but It requires the agreement of the opposition
of trading and opening the position.
The development of the rook is what Nunn said was made kasparov so fatal,
I remember I read he said if you look at kasparov games You will find that he always manages
to put his rooks earlier in an active position or squares.
He was not talking about the e4 debate but none of us is kasparov ,
e4 is based in tactical play, You have to be a monster there to keep the initial advantage if there
is any, since I am not, I only play e4 because I enjoy it, costume perhaps maybe
It feels like too much work new traps lines to start in d4 now, and the little I know I want to stick with it,
but beyond that e4 does not seem to be objectively good
It may be a matter of personal taste, the good thing about e4 is that you can trade pieces
even if its not good, at least you can play d4 later and then you dont have a cramped baroque
position,
I really dont see a problem with e4 as long as You are prepared to castle queenside against the sicilian
and in the french white might find something to counteract it,
So maybe the strength of e4 is just the e4 square sounds redundant but its a bit like if you dont play e4 on move one
then black has enough time to equalize, another reason to play e4 its that its just more difficult (it has greater chances of unbalance the position)
If I were a stronger player I could comment compare with d4 but since I am not, I cant
I know d4 is a good move, nothing wrong with it, the only bad thing about d4 is that you dont get to play e4,
dont think its a big deal to miss c4 as queen gambit shows.
So how can we understand this? We cant really, until We become stronger
another way to understand this its to look it from the black side, when We play black
What do we prefer to face e4 or d4?
I like both really, I like just playing.
Even if d4 is better I personally believe that understanding of e4 is richer, I am looking forward to play an open sicilian with opposite castling and see what it happens,
I want to understand if c5 is a weakness that can be exploited
as the first time that I saw c5, It felt ugly
I thought moving a pawn that its not in a center, not developing a piece was a bad idea, so if I dont get crushed too often playing the sicilian now
I will play e4 sometimes and even if I become a d4 player its good
to play e4 and feel the position.
because its not only about winning or losing
but about enjoying the position and that depence much
in my current mood, sometimes I feel like grinding and sometimes I want to make crazy unsound sacs.
thats exactly why I said it,
you need to put fischer into context
e4 was good for fischer because he was a monster in opening theory
much like kasparov, but these are very unique guys
who not only were intelligent but put a great deal of work.
I forgot to mention a reason why I think most people play e4, besides the light bishoup out
the castling and the costume of it
and it is the e column
yeah probably people start playing e like pieces going forward and then stick to it
with costume experience, when you start playing chess you have the feeling that the attack
goes vertical, and in a sense it does, in a bunch, but in a concrete piece like a pawn
the pawn attack sideways and its counterintuitive
I already mentioned in another post that the e pawn is the only pawn that is not protected
c and f are bishop and d by queen,
so what does the e pawn accomplish or why people play it, mainly because of the e column
because of the feeling of the space but this is really a false idea,
now the e pawn is true that can push to e5 but that generally is a weakness as black has two
options to counteract it when needed f6, d6 for example, being f6 a long term option available
and d6 more concrete, as black soon has to decide in the opening where his d pawn belongs
or how is it gonna develop it,
e5 what is e5? You have only e5 first if black does not play e5 and then if it does not
you arrive to advanced french advanced caro alekhine, etc
So e5 alone to me that Im not a good sharp player looks like a weakness, and if I have
d4 to support it, It looks like a liability
and talking about liabilities, I heard again that in the sicilian white does not know how to
play with his light bishop, in c4 is kind of useless only beginners play that although I may
be mistaken, you give black plenty of options like e6 d5, or just fianchetto on g7 or Nc6
which is what I played, so most people dont play bishop c4 in the sicilian
we already said that in the closed sicilian the bishop is kind of locked, it has a defensive
status like waiting, is that bad? no, but its not good either at least it does not show clearly
and opening advantage, so that advantage of playing e4 to liberate the light bishop is gone,
I may be confused I am a beginner but It seems they play bishop b5 and look to trade a bishop!!
wow how good can e4 be when in one of the most important mainlines, like the open sicilian
the najdorf black plays a6 and b5 is taken already, although I dont know if it belongs to
a knight tactic attack a bishop tactic attack, yes black may lose a tempo but really I dont know
the lines, (dont believe much in tempo losing with things like a6, b5) but I know there is an
important variation in the sicilian which is called the rossolino and its not the mainline
and white players play it, maybe there is a double pawn, I dont think so, dont remember
but even if it were a double pawn with an open rook file, that does not look too bad for black,
I think that happens in the grand prix attack, im totally naive sorry for mumbling,
but I have the impression that white players dont know or understand the sicilian.
Ok lets get back to the topic and forget about the light bishop liability,
so what I was saying is that people play e4, well I really dont know why, cause before I learned
the rules d4 looked the natural move to me and when I heard e4 was a good move It felt awkard to me,
then I started to playing following the advice and much of what I know belongs to e4,
but it feels that e4 is only good if black plays e5 and although the game may be equal
white is more comfortable as it has a tempo up, so thats probably the beginning of chess,
it may make sense to play e4 if your opponent makes e5, even if there is the berlin defence now,
but that was a costume of 150 years ago or about that, now playing e4 you have to face other things,
the game is not as simple simmetrical, so lets say for example we have an opponent that does
not play e5, then we have that potential move in our position but as I already stated
it does not make sense to focus on the e5 square if you dont have d4 control which is more basic,
What else? Even knight c3 might be more logical than e4 although it locks the c pawn and may get
a passive play, It looks like a very solid move, and then you can play e4 later if you want.
But I wanted to say another thing, its about the e3 square, that is the main advantage of e4
that is what you are gaining control of, it is not d5 as it is too far away and black will find
a way to play it if it wants like c6 e6, the main advantage of playing e4 is gaining space
its gaining e3, that is you are putting the center of gravity of the position in the e3 square,
which is doubtful as It could be in d3, because if You play d4 you have d3, (plus d4 as well as
It is protected) so yes e4 gets you e3, does not look like a big thing but I dont know what else
It gets you.
Say that you want to play e4 to open the position, to trade and put the rook on e1 for example,
quite logical this should be like the main strength, but It requires the agreement of the opposition
of trading and opening the position.
The development of the rook is what Nunn said was made kasparov so fatal,
I remember I read he said if you look at kasparov games You will find that he always manages
to put his rooks earlier in an active position or squares.
He was not talking about the e4 debate but none of us is kasparov ,
e4 is based in tactical play, You have to be a monster there to keep the initial advantage if there
is any, since I am not, I only play e4 because I enjoy it, costume perhaps maybe
It feels like too much work new traps lines to start in d4 now, and the little I know I want to stick with it,
but beyond that e4 does not seem to be objectively good
It may be a matter of personal taste, the good thing about e4 is that you can trade pieces
even if its not good, at least you can play d4 later and then you dont have a cramped baroque
position,
I really dont see a problem with e4 as long as You are prepared to castle queenside against the sicilian
and in the french white might find something to counteract it,
So maybe the strength of e4 is just the e4 square sounds redundant but its a bit like if you dont play e4 on move one
then black has enough time to equalize, another reason to play e4 its that its just more difficult (it has greater chances of unbalance the position)
If I were a stronger player I could comment compare with d4 but since I am not, I cant
I know d4 is a good move, nothing wrong with it, the only bad thing about d4 is that you dont get to play e4,
dont think its a big deal to miss c4 as queen gambit shows.
So how can we understand this? We cant really, until We become stronger
another way to understand this its to look it from the black side, when We play black
What do we prefer to face e4 or d4?
I like both really, I like just playing.
Even if d4 is better I personally believe that understanding of e4 is richer, I am looking forward to play an open sicilian with opposite castling and see what it happens,
I want to understand if c5 is a weakness that can be exploited
as the first time that I saw c5, It felt ugly
I thought moving a pawn that its not in a center, not developing a piece was a bad idea, so if I dont get crushed too often playing the sicilian now
I will play e4 sometimes and even if I become a d4 player its good
to play e4 and feel the position.
because its not only about winning or losing
but about enjoying the position and that depence much
in my current mood, sometimes I feel like grinding and sometimes I want to make crazy unsound sacs.
@ post #1
I play 1.e4 just because i like open games with attacking possibilities, instead of closed solid games with a lot of manoevring that 1.d4 often leads to. I dont choose the open game just because I believe that its better than 1.d4 or the english or reti etc. I choose it because it suits my style of play.
About the sidelines, you are right than to challenge black's play especially vs the sicilian one has to play the open sicilian and the sharpest variation for opening advantage. However, in the lower level (below GM) I dont think it is too important to get out of an opening with +0.50 instead of +0.10. I believe its more important to be confortable with a position and have experience with the plans and traps that it contains. So one might have a lot of experience with the closed sicilian and he might prefer to play it in order to reach a familiar position where he might not have as big of an advantage as if he has chosen the open one, but which is easier for him to play.
So to conclude, I dont think that there is that big of a difference what first move you choose (1.d4 or 1.e4). In both the open game and the closed one black can minimize white's advantage to a point where the position is practically equal. Its more important to choose the opening that suits your style of play.
I play 1.e4 just because i like open games with attacking possibilities, instead of closed solid games with a lot of manoevring that 1.d4 often leads to. I dont choose the open game just because I believe that its better than 1.d4 or the english or reti etc. I choose it because it suits my style of play.
About the sidelines, you are right than to challenge black's play especially vs the sicilian one has to play the open sicilian and the sharpest variation for opening advantage. However, in the lower level (below GM) I dont think it is too important to get out of an opening with +0.50 instead of +0.10. I believe its more important to be confortable with a position and have experience with the plans and traps that it contains. So one might have a lot of experience with the closed sicilian and he might prefer to play it in order to reach a familiar position where he might not have as big of an advantage as if he has chosen the open one, but which is easier for him to play.
So to conclude, I dont think that there is that big of a difference what first move you choose (1.d4 or 1.e4). In both the open game and the closed one black can minimize white's advantage to a point where the position is practically equal. Its more important to choose the opening that suits your style of play.
#27: some good points.
One thing I would say though, while below a master level it may not be important as you say to get out of the opening as White with +0.50 rather than say +0.10, I would argue however that if as White you are at roughly a +/- after move 4 or 5 because you don't know all the sidelines, you are likely going to run into bigger problems. I think with d4 and flank openings it's much easier to allow your opponent to equalize in the opening, find a plan, create threats, force mistakes and squeeze your way back to a win. In an e4 line, being equal at move 4 or 5 means you are going to get hammered by your opponent's tactics rather early on and struggle to not give away material. It's why I almost always open with d4 as White and why I almost always counter e4 with e5 to encourage an opening I can more easily draw my opponent into an equal position that looks promising to attack so that I can win through counterplay.
I spent many years playing 1. e4 and being met by 1...e6 or 1...c5 in response and found myself losing almost every game I played due to the vast amount of theory. Like Fisher I found KIA to be my primary weapon against 1...e6 but knew I was already playing with some disadvantage. And against 1...c5 I had the aforementioned lightsquared bishop problems. With such complex tactical options in the open games, there is an immense amount of theory that is harder to understand than the d4 theory, imo. I feel like to get a good understanding of chess theory, the d4 lines are easier to grasp, and the e4 lines are better for generating complex tactics. They both have their place, and players of different styles will lean more toward one or the other.
One thing I would say though, while below a master level it may not be important as you say to get out of the opening as White with +0.50 rather than say +0.10, I would argue however that if as White you are at roughly a +/- after move 4 or 5 because you don't know all the sidelines, you are likely going to run into bigger problems. I think with d4 and flank openings it's much easier to allow your opponent to equalize in the opening, find a plan, create threats, force mistakes and squeeze your way back to a win. In an e4 line, being equal at move 4 or 5 means you are going to get hammered by your opponent's tactics rather early on and struggle to not give away material. It's why I almost always open with d4 as White and why I almost always counter e4 with e5 to encourage an opening I can more easily draw my opponent into an equal position that looks promising to attack so that I can win through counterplay.
I spent many years playing 1. e4 and being met by 1...e6 or 1...c5 in response and found myself losing almost every game I played due to the vast amount of theory. Like Fisher I found KIA to be my primary weapon against 1...e6 but knew I was already playing with some disadvantage. And against 1...c5 I had the aforementioned lightsquared bishop problems. With such complex tactical options in the open games, there is an immense amount of theory that is harder to understand than the d4 theory, imo. I feel like to get a good understanding of chess theory, the d4 lines are easier to grasp, and the e4 lines are better for generating complex tactics. They both have their place, and players of different styles will lean more toward one or the other.
"After 1 P-K4 white’s game is in its last throes.”
-Gyula Breyer
-Gyula Breyer
What you say about White players also applies to Black players too.
Think about it... if players at our level don't play main lines with White, how are the Black players going to get experience of playing against those main lines? They're not. Why would it even be worth them spending ages learning lines they hardly ever face in practice?
The upshot is you generally don't need to be all that afraid of people knowing more theory than you, and you don't need to avoid main lines based on such fears.
Btw e4 may have been "best by test" for Fischer personally given his style, but as far as statistics go, if anything in GM games overall White scores for d4 are marginally higher than for e4. Not higher enough that you should care though.
Think about it... if players at our level don't play main lines with White, how are the Black players going to get experience of playing against those main lines? They're not. Why would it even be worth them spending ages learning lines they hardly ever face in practice?
The upshot is you generally don't need to be all that afraid of people knowing more theory than you, and you don't need to avoid main lines based on such fears.
Btw e4 may have been "best by test" for Fischer personally given his style, but as far as statistics go, if anything in GM games overall White scores for d4 are marginally higher than for e4. Not higher enough that you should care though.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.