Quote:


I'm with Inn2--this has been my strategy for a long time as well.  My "e4" repetoire started with 1. Nc3, which usually transposed to some kind of e4 game, but drastically limited the amount of study I had to do.  When at last I felt comfortable, I moved to playing 1. e4 outright, but with a set of modest openings that didn't require much theory, like Bishop's Opening, or the Short system in the Advance Caro, or the Closed Sicilian.  With this last I've worked around to switching to an Open Sicilian with 3. Nf6 when Black plays 2...e6, and maybe someday--who knows?--I'll play Open against all Sicilians...or maybe I'll "upgrade" my answer to 1...e5 first. 

It's repetoire building in installments, and so far it's worked out okay for me. 

It's funny but true that I'm guessing we class players skimp on our White repetoires--where it's possible to get an equal game without much effort--to concentrate on our Black repetoires--where you can get blown off the board if you don't know what you're doing. 

As for the actual question of the thread:  Alias, I think you're doing the right thing in "test driving" both 1. d4 and 1. e4 in blitz games.  That'll give you a way better feel for what you like than any theorizing or guess-work.  If you're enjoying 1. e4 the most in blitz, I'm betting you'll enjoy it the most in classical time controls, too.

well he didnt play 1d4 either

e4! (best by test) 8)

I'm not advocating that we all become encyclopaedias of openings.  In fact I'm hoping for just the opposite. That we are creative from the very beginning.  However, where clearly the best move is also one that has been studied in depth, we shouldn't be afraid to play it.  We should have confidence in ourselves that we can play the best moves regardless of how well Black is prepared.  In fact, our level of preparedness is probably going to be greater than those around us anyway just because we do spend the time here.

I fully agree with you castlerock.

Once in a while I play IMs and GMs but have no aspiration to do become one. All I want is to have  a decent repertoire for a 2000-2100 player. Something that puts black under pressure (even in CC games) and is more fun than the current c4/g3 lines I play.

MNb: Maybe I'm not the one to say so, because I haven't made the decision of e4 or d4, but I don't think your issues are the most important ones.

The variations you mention are some of those which are considered to be the best for black.

White can't force +/= in every possible line.

The most important issue is whether I as white feel comfortable in the opening phase. Do I reach interesting positions I think I understand? When just looking at a few games or a few lines some openings or opening lines might look very promising. When looking in more detail things are often not that clear.

That's the tricky part. To know if an opening is suitable for me, I need to get down to details and to know details of all possible opening choices takes far too much time.

All I know is that I don't like c4, d3, e4 vs the KI and I don't like Reti. I don't think white has anything in the lines Kosten recommends against the dragon reversed or in the e5/c6 lines. Also, the symmetric lines he recommends are dull.

Going back to MNb's comment, I think that the sicilian is a main issue. Open or Anti-sic lines? Anti-sic lines might be practical but not very exciting. Most Najdorfs and Sveshnikovs are interesting. Many lines are equal or unclear but still interesting for white. f4 was recommended in BTS2 and 3. I don't like that line. Bg5, Be3 or Be2 seem better. I'd probably go for the exf5, c3 line vs Sveshnikov. I'm not that comfortable in Hedgehogs and Maroczys even though early c4 often is recommended against Taimanov/Kan and Acc dragon. Petroff is a tough nut to crack. Early Nc3 or c4 are interesting choices. I'm also a bit worried about the french. I don't know if Nc3, Nd2 or e5 suits me. It's a tricky opening. I've played e5 in CC and blitz but the games have been rather unexciting.

I think both Qc2 Nimzo and a3 QI are interesting. I'm more worried about Grünfeld, KI and Benoni. Also the solid QG-lines is a concern.

This thread is beginning to sound like GMs Suba and Adorjan have won the theoretical argument of the first move.

They both argue that Black is better because he has the second move.  Suba uses the example of the childish game: 

Player 1:  Pick a number
Player 2:  27
Player 1:  28! I win!

From what I've read, it's miserable to be White because no matter how White plays Black is going to have a theoretical advantage in whatever opening he chooses.  I refuse to believe that (except when I'm playing Black of course  ).  White has a statistical,  theoretical, and real advantage of the first move.  If White has to work hard to prove that advantage, Black has to work even harder to disprove it!

White shouldn't be afraid of his or her opponents' openings, rather White should play either 1.d4 or 1.e4 (or s/he can choose between several other moves that are probably just as good).  White should stake a claim to having the better position and be prepared to fight for it!  If that means studying the White side of openings you find distasteful, then so be it!

Ok, the practical side of me agrees that it's easier to play a few non-critical lines and avoid theory.  There's another weapon in White's arsenal though:  Move order!

White can pick and choose which openings to study and find ways to force his or her opponent into the lines White wants to play!  Here's an example for the 1.d4 player:

I was playing a friend who loves the Seville variation of the Grunfeld and the Benko as Black.  He also plays the King's Indian, but not as well as the other two.  I played 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 and here he thought for a while before playing 3...Bg7 4.e4! d6 5.d4 0-0 and we're into the KID Classical without my opponent even getting a chance to play his favorite lines.  Later on, I "offered" to go into a Grunfeld by playing 4.d4.  But since this would likely take the game into non-Exchange lines and I was obviously prepared, he decided to try the King's Indian again.  I scored 2-0.

White, to move, has the advantage.  It's almost a moral imperative for White to play that way, and not be afraid of his opponent's preparation!