Quote:


Well, you are slightly fast and loose with the facts, my friend.  d4 players get to play the exchange QGD but e4 players don't get to play the exchange Ruy or the Bishop's Opening?   The exchange Ruy can be quite effective at club level.

I'm no expert on the various QGD variations but does one really want to play the exchange (or some other short-cut line) against all of them?  If you don't, you must admit there are a lot of QGD variations.

Just a basic count:

e4: e5, CK, Sicilian, Pirc, Scandy, French and Alekhine

d4: QGD, QGA, Benoni, Benko, KID, Nimzo/QID, Grunfeld, Slav, Semi-Slav, Chigorin, Budapest...

What did I leave out?

I am probably being a little fast and loose myself    but I have asked this very question to a number of players (club players and masters) and the answer usually was d4 is more work.  Again, if you are playing open Sicilian the work load does increase significantly for e4.

The bottom line is both demand considerable work.

I also think that, in general, d4 is still more positional and e4 more tactical and thus, as you wrote, e4 players can lose their advantage quickly.  However, on the flip side, doesn't this mean that d4 players will often have to find more subtle ways to win and have very good technique to do so?  Technique that can be out of reach of most club players.

It seems to me that d4 (I mean the Queen's Gambit not the Tromp, etc.,) requires much more work then e4.   That is as long as you don't play the open Sicilian.   There are simply more defenses to the Queen's Gambit then 1.e4.  Of course, club players really shouldn't worry about openings the way we do.   Some of us still can't help ourselves. 

to quote John Nunn from Understanding Chess: Move by Move
"1 d4  This is one of the two most common first moves, the other being 1 e4. The view is sometimes expressed that 1 d4 is a more positional move than 1 e4. Actually I can't see much difference. There are many sharp openings after 1 d4, just as there are many quiet openings resulting from 1 e4."

When I read this it made such sense to me. I had been playing 1. e4 for six months after switching from 1 d4... I enjoyed the more active piece play I was getting but started thinking that  maybe I had just simply chosen boring lines with 1 d4. Now i'm back to 1 d4 and it feels right. I have started playing more active continuations like 4 f3 Nimzo, 3 e4 against QGA and so on. I think aggressive d4 players have the advantage of being less common that aggressive 1 e4 players... I could be wrong  but that's my feeling.

I never have to play against the french, caro cann, scandinavian, petrof or the sicialian ever again so I'm happy!

Nobody has suggested 1 f4, and likely with good reason, but let me try to make a pitch.  It is a viable opening, rich in diverse possibilities, and short on published analysis.  This is a particular advantage in correspondence chess, where your opponents will have access to databases, books, and articles.  Moreover, if you run through a half dozen or so games in a database, one rapidly comes to the conclusion that many of its practitioners don't handle the Bird particularly well.  Another advantage here is that there is room for innovation and creative play, while also unsettling your opponent and preventing him/her from lashing out with some pet variation of the Sicilian, Nimzo, or what have you.

I've enjoyed some success with the Bird, but have yet to get under its skin.  I've been trying variations involving 1 f4, 2 d3, and 3 g3, before committing my knight to f3.  I can't report much of an advantage out of the opening, but I'm certainly not worse, and there are interesting possibilities for complications, not to mention some fascinating struggles for control of the middle of the board.

"This way you get 1. e4-type positions, without all the double-e-pawn variations"
Alas, 1.Nc3 Nf6! gives White not a very nice choice:
2.d4 d5 is Veresov.
2.e4 e5 is Vienna, a rather innocent double e-pawn opening.
2.f4 d5 is the Bird Opening.

I am facing a very similar problem with designing a complete repertoire.  I don't think the best solution is strictly following a narrow repertoire, as inevitably there will be certain positions that will not be appropriate in specific playing conditions.  I am beginning to think of the development of my repertoire in terms of several systems that are each appropriate to different circumstances or types of opponent.  For me, it difficult to narrow myself to one mode of opening systems, as a I have a broad interest.  (From your postal play, it seems that you have a broad interest also.)  Here's an example of a framework of systems I have considered.  You could think of each system as like a "gear" of a car, where lower gears are appropriate for lower speeds and higher gears for higher speeds.  (Though don't draw too many conclusions from the comparsion!    )

Gear 1:
White:  (1.d4) Trompovsky (a Prie style repertoire)
Black:  Scandinavian, a6 Slav
Here each opening has a stylistic and structural similarity, and is efficient from the perspective of preparation and energy exerted over the board.  Of course, there are several drawbacks to playing this exclusively.  In some lines it might be difficult to beat weaker players, and against stronger players there are likely to be some "holes" in preparation due the improvisational nature of the openings.  I think this should be viewed as a back-up weapon that combines solidity with a small element of surpise.

Gear 2:
White:  (1.e4)  Rublevsky style; i.e. many of the lines Collins recommends his repertoire book (c3 Sicilian, Scotch, Panov-Botvinnik, Advance French)
Black:  Alekhine, Dutch Systems
In my opinion, the white repertoire is forceful from the white perspective and is excellent for efficiently beating weaker opposition.  The black systems are more ambitious than Gear 1, and likely offer better winning chances against weaker opposition.  In this system, it is very important to develop your own theory (especially as black).

The Gear 2 black openings carry a degree of risk, so it is good to a have a solid backup with the Gear 1 openings.  The Gear 2 white openings sometimes have the drawback of being too forceful, so it is sometimes good to have a system that is more improvisational to generate winning chances against well-prepared opposition.

"Higher gear" opening systems (i.e. main line openings) may be developed with postal play and independent analysis, and may at some point be used interchangeably with the lower gears:

Gear 3:
White: 1.d4 (Positional, Palliser style as in "Play d4")
Black:  Najdorf, Nimzo, QID
The white systems can be adopted at an early stage with Gear 1, especially against 1...d5.

Gear 4:
White: 1.e4 (main line, as in the Anand repertoire by Khalifman)
Black:  Scheveningen Najdorf, KID, Benoni

Gear 3 complements Gear 1, and Gear 4 complements Gear 2.

Yeah, the more comparisons I see the more I want to play 1.d4!

hello king, i'm glad the comparison helped!

Here are some others for your consideration, which opening would you rather face as white? :

Albin Countergambit = Scandinavian (the 2... Nf6 type)

Grunfeld = Sveshnikov sicilian (for the obssesive black focus on piece activity, and the amount of theory) 

Benko = Accelerated Dragon (for Black's solid position and his annoying dark squared bishop)

Tromp/Torre= anti sicilians. I like the Tromp more than any anti-sicilian