The great debate

I was always under the opposite assumption, that e4 games tend to be aggressive and involve a lot of resource trading, and white needs to leverage his first move advantage in order to create plays, whereas d4 openings often result in closed positions where there is a lot of emphasis placed on strategic depth.

I used to play d4 a lot, now I prefer e4 simply because open games appeal to me more. A lot of the stereotypes about d4 being boring come from the fact that you usually can't launch an immediate attack and because of the Orthodox Defense of the Queen's Gambit Declined. Most of the Indian Defenses are anything but boring though.

If you really hate the Open Sicilian against e4 that much, there are plenty of good anti-Sicilian systems available, even aside from the Morra Gambit -- Grand Prix attack, closed fianchetto systems, Alapin variation, Bb5 systems, King's Indian Attack, etc.

d4. Same win percentage as white, lower win percentage as black. Do the math.

I feel that d4 gives you a slight psychological advantage. Since as said, e4 e5 openings are typically the first ones you learn to play, more people know how to use them. When you start a game with e4, your opponent will typically start thinking Sicilian or Ruy Lopez while d4 openings tend to be a little less well-known, especially to amateur players. d4 openings are more forgiving since they offer less chance to fall into an opening trap, the games go slower and take longer to get anywhere.

Sometimes I move the horse first.

Most people like to believe e4 openings are fast and tactical while d4 openings are slow and positional, but one of the most popular e4 openings (Ruy Lopez) usually always leads to a slow, plodding positional game. A lot of people also think d4 openings have less theory to remember. It may be true that there's 100,000,000 different Sicilian variants, but if you open with d4 you'll get a bigger variety of openings since you won't get a Ruy or Sicilian in 60% of your games. You can get Queen's Gambit Accepted, Declined, Slav Defense, Dutch Defense, the many different Indian Defenses, etc.

Unfortunately, if you open with e4, you should be prepared to get Sicilian Defenses. A lot of them. That's just how it is.

d4 isn't aggressive from the start. e4 openings can lead to an attack on the enemy king within a couple of moves. d4 openings ensure more safety for the king and prevent any kind of attack from happening until at least midgame.

The opening move you play depends on the style of play. Just understanding the difference between King Pawn and Queen Pawn games determines the style. The former is sharper, while the latter is tamer. Strong aggressive tacticians like Bobby Fischer, Garry Kasparov, and Judit Polgar prefer e4, while tenacious defenders prefer d4. Tigran Petrosian and Viktor Korchnoi employed the English Opening (1. c4), which would often transpose to a Queen Pawn opening. The Zukertort Opening (1. Nf3), my favorite, can transpose to either a Queen Pawn opening or a Sicilian Defense.

It's misleading anyway to say Kasparov favored e4 since most of his career, he used d4 openings because he was scared of the Sicilian Defense.

The best way to punish Sicilian players is to do 2. c4 which brings you into the Symmetrical Defense of the English Opening.

No, the best way to do it is to actually play the Sicilian well, since it's an opening with very strong chances for white too.

Seriously, what is up with the past week of people (or just one guy) non-stop suggesting gimmick openings? It's fucking retarded.

I guess that's proof that e4 is broken as an opening since Black can always just respond with c5 or e6 to torture you.

I was afraid it would turn to pic related. Good job.

The French Defense is also bullshit and very hard to play against. Even Fischer would shit the bed if he were playing on the White side of a French Defense.

>scared of little black and white pieces
What a fagit

you can just do the exchange french to keep everything boring and white still has a reasonable advantage.

Also the french has a lot of traps that both players can fall into. You have to go through the lines really well to know what you're doing.

If I'm Black, I much prefer the Caro-Kann or Scandinavian over the Sicilian. If I'm White and I get a Sicilian, I go with Fischer's advice to pry open the h file and sac my way to victory.

The Sicilian is based around the hypermodern idea of controlling the center without actually occupying it. A lot of people absolutely worship the Najdorf.

I like the Caro-Kann better, it's not as overused--a lot of Sicilian players just seem to be working on their book memorization of lines.

I also prefer oddball Sicilian lines to the Najdorf or Dragon. The Najdorf requires you to memorize a _lot_ of stuff, but it can lead to some very sharp attacking lines.

Kings Gambit.

Everyone will think you're either much better than they are, or retarded. Either way, they'll make mistakes out of fear or pity.

The other problem is that the popular Sicilian variations tend to have lines that are refuted and then as if by magic, unrefuted a few years later. What sucks about the Sicilian is the sheer amount of stuff you have to know to play it, the latest 15 move variation or something. I personally think it's better to answer 1...c5 with 2. c3 (the closed Sicilian) or 2. d3 followed by fianchettoing the king bishop and avoiding theoretical lines. Since a lot of Sicilian players will be brushed up on the latest variant that Magnus Carlsen or whatever used in his most recent tournament, you want to throw them off a bit and not give them any attacking chances. In particular, the King's Indian Attack isn't going to be refuted any time soon. ;)

Keep in mind that what's good for a grandmaster isn't necessarily good for an amateur. For example, Kasparov and Anand have used the Najdorf to deadly effect, but I think it's far too advanced for under-2000 players to attempt.

1. d4 is the best possible move to ensure that you'll never get a Sicilian Defense. :^)

Barring that. 2. c3 is a good choice.

When Black does 1...e6, it usually means he's planning to cower inside his unassailable pawn fortress like a little bitch.

I didn't even know chess had named strategies. What the fuck

Uh, yeah. Any opening move you can make has a name. With d4 and e4, there are lines with 10+ moves that have names. Pretty much every playable d4 and e4 opening 3 or 4 moves in has a name and several variations for the next few moves.

Beginners learn how to do the basic e4 e5 openings like King's Gambit, Giuoco Piano, and Philidor's Defense. Advanced players will know 15 different Ruy Lopez or Nimzo-Indian lines.

telegraph.co.uk/culture/chess/11548840/Nigel-Short-Girls-just-dont-have-the-brains-to-play-chess.html

Didn't Kasparov allegedly also say in the late 80s or something that women can't play chess?

Topgeg

it's obviously bullshit. most high-level chess players have been playing competitively since they were small children. Even 10 years ago (and even now) girls are less likely to be encouraged to play chess when they are young, and these comments don't help. The meteoric rise of Hou Yifan basically kills these arguments. Go to any chess club and it's mostly boys, and they can be quite rude to women.

Also, I'm not convinced that chess has to be this ultra-competitive thing. It can be really fun as a casual activity, just like with MTG or similar you don't really have to play in tournaments. Not to mention chess is feeling a pretty slow death and (as much as high-level players don't like to admit it) you can only draw against a computer these days.

Women don't have the same competitiveness, aggressiveness, or spatial/calculation abilities as men. Or the physical endurance which comes into play in long matches, something that Hou Yifan has acknowledged.

Feminism is actually a vestige of Cartesianism that considers the soul to be of a another world, a non-extended substance, and not subject to influences from the body. It's outdated by like 100 years or something.

>Feminism is actually a vestige of Cartesianism that considers the soul to be of a another world, a non-extended substance, and not subject to influences from the body. It's outdated by like 100 years or something.
that might be the most fedora thing I've ever read.

h4 4 lyfe

e4 is always the right choice.