Quote:



Smyslov_Fan,

Topalov actually played a Queens Indian in round 2 versus Anand. So the records are 1/1 or 100% for the d4-Aficionados!

Cheers,
Cresspahl

Quote:



What is "White:  (1.d4) Trompovsky (a Prie style repertoire)"? What does Prie reconmend in the tromp (I am really looking into it these days to help cut down on the study time and I like the positions)? Just wondering what his reconmendations are. Thanks.

hehehe.

White has played 1.e4 in all four of the first round games in San Luis.  White's combined score? 0-2-2!

Maybe White shoulda played 1.d4!

Quote:


Ya, I deliberately transcribed it to algebric for the benefit of tthe younger ones. I'll admit guilt to adding the brackets tho.

Seriously now..... for me it was a case of choosing whether I preferred meeting the QGD & Indians or meeting The Sicilians, French & CK. I dont mind meeting Indians , but meeting the QGD wasnt my cup of tea as I felt I needed more activity & open lines, & neither did I feel too comfortable playing against the Cambridge Springs. So e4 (P-K4) it is for me. As much as I have unhappy experiences against the French (Winawer especially) & CK, Both the French xchange & the Panno-Botvinnik vs CK does provide a more open & spacious condition otb which I enjoy.

This being the case....some of you who wrote abt knowing/deciding which defense you would prefer playing against as white makes a lot of sense for me & i do identify with that approach.

geez... I hadn't noticed that transposition, if only because most nimzo players never push their d-pawn two steps!

I agree with you too that Alias shouldn't fear the Grunfeld/KID, since White has a large leeway to choose the game's strategic direction. The Benoni is suprisingly strong though, in the hands of good tactical players this can be a headache, and here the choice for White is narrower: White has only 4 good systems to choose (from most to least aggressive): Taimanov, Modern Main Line, Samisch, Bf4.

Quote:


How does one use 5. Bf4 against the nimzo?! I have resigned myself to learning the complicated Vienna and Ragozin, but White has all the attacking chances in these lines!

@Alias
"I'm more worried about Grünfeld, KI and Benoni. Also the solid QG-lines is a concern."
You shouldn't. On the Grünfeld last few years two relevant books have been published offering a White repertoire: How to get an edge against the G and Challenging the G. Of course there is more.
Against both the KI and the Benoni White has a wide choice, varying from 3/4 pawns attacks to positional g3 systems. Again you should be able to make a good choice.
Against the QGD White has some aggressive variations at his disposal too: Exchange variations with Nge2,f3, Rubinstein Variation 7.Qc2. Inn2 prefers a setup with 5.Bf4, which has the advantage that White can also use it against the NID.
About the same is true for the French. OK, 3.e5 does not suit you - it does not suit me either. As you already have pointed out, there is more.
Now I do not want to discuss the merits of all White options here. The point I want to make, is that every player should be able to find something to his taste against these Black defenses.

So I think your choice boils down to: NID 4.Qc2, QID 4.a3 or (anti)Petrov. What's more fun for you? After you have made your choice, forget about the rest, stick to it for a while and build your repertoire around it.
I am curious what will be the outcome.

@Smyslov_Fan
"White has a statistical,  theoretical, and real advantage of the first move."
Debatable. According to Tal after 10 moves or so the game becomes so complex, that the first move advantage has lost its meaning. I think it is more practical for amateurs to play in this spirit than to haunt a virtual edge as White. Alias' strive for interesting positions confirms this. Frankly I don not give much for moral imperatives. When playing chess I am a hedonist.

@Bravehoptoad
"test driving both 1. d4 and 1. e4 in blitz games."
This is really not a good idea in corr games.

Quote:


I second that!  (Just realise that 1.e4 will demand more study.  Oh shucks, I just recommended that you play more chess.  Isn't that horrible!  8) It's great when your favorite pasttime is rich enough to take up all of your free time if you want it to!)

Willempie:

True, true.  He didn't play the best move even when he had the BFO (Blinding Flash of the Obvious) that in fact 1.d4 is indeed best. 8)

Now, on a slightly more serious note, and actually addressing Alias' question:

Both 1e4 and 1.d4 are great, superb, excellent, classic!  But, for a player coming off c4 and Nf3 systems, 1.d4 makes a much more gentle transition.  So in your case, if you've been playing a bunch of English Openings you should probably consider 1.d4 lines. 

To save yourself some work in the beginning, the Catalan is an excellent transitional opening from the English, and cuts down on a lot of your work.  Against the KID the Classical or the Saemisch is the way to go, so you may as well learn one of those.  The Grunfeld may be a special problem for you, so give Black the headache for a change, don't go into the Exchange variation.  The Classical (Bf4) System is still good.  You may also want to check out the relatively harmless fianchetto system against the Grunfeld too, since that will be similar to your previous repertoire. 

Anyway, good luck, and let us know how things are progressing!

(In a mock-serious tone: )

If you're gonna quote Fischer, quote him accurately: "1.P-K4, Best by test."

Well, apparently, Fischer failed his own test in the World Championship match!    

Controversial does not begin to desribe what this whole thread is about. I was thinking on mant different planes for this one.

For one who wants to limit the amount of positions that can arise after the first move i would recomend either the off beat flank openings like the Larsen or Sokolosky even the Dunst which we americans call 1.Nc3 any way.

As black it is much harder to limit posibilities. But a serious thought would be to think about well what openings are there that dont have 50 million anti lines!
I was thinking Modern,Owens,Pirc, or even the saint george which will cause a prolem all by it self for me mentioning it.

But as for the question of which is better i would leave that to the philophers who are not us. I mean its just depends on the man or woman playing the game. I play e4 and i know i have to face a lot of openings. I have cut out a lot of them by playing the crazy gambit stuff,smith-morra,alipin,Milnerberry,omega gambit. I mean thats the way to limit the thoery by playing things that try to throw the black player off right a way.

Im not saying it will work for every one but when i started school i couldnt keep spending 6-8 hours a day so i changed gears and still must look at different lines but not nearly as much as if say i played an open siclian. I will ocasionaly bring out the classical french though.

My favourite theory is that the choice of 1. d4 or 1. e4 happens by luck and circumstance. Otherwise its very hard to explain how people came to feel "more comfortable" with one move more than the other. Very few are really comfortable with both first moves. Maybe it has something to do with the innate wiring of our brains that makes us like one move more than the other?!

Whether one likes positional/tactical play is not so relevant to the question, as it's well known that the sharpest opening belongs to 1. d4 (the Botvinnik Semi-Slav ) and the most boring opening belongs to 1. e4 (Giuoco Piannismo! )!!

My point is, choose what your instinct tells you. Its all fated, the choice has probably been already made for you when your brain was being wired as a child!

Quote:


We can't fix that because it is not existent in the first place.

For example, how many times have you got 18…Nc6 or whatever in Classical KID? Or for that matter a 26th move improvement recommended by Chris Ward in Dragon? Well, the honest answer would be ‘zero’ if your opponent is rated below 2200.

As part of my cutting edge theory study, I’m presently looking at Winnaver now. Out of curiosity, I transferred the lines to a chessbase file. There are 79 lines in 8.Qg4 Nbc6 lines alone! I didn’t even include 8…f5. At this count PTF3 should have 2000 line in Winnaver alone. What is the predicament of someone wanting learn (completely) KID and Sicilian Najdorf from black side and Open Sicilian, Nc3 French and Marshall Attack as white? What kind of a life someone who does that will lead? I would really pity him.

The fact of the matter is, it is not done and it can’t be done, if you want to pass out with good grades or pay the bills and take care of family or girl friend! It’s a blessing in disguise!  I don’t want to play chess if we are forced to dish out 25 moves from the book, play 5 or 6 original moves and then hand over the game to Nalimov Tablebase!

The moment one player goes of book within 15 moves, both players go out of book and that’s fun. That’s the way out fathers played, that’s the way we play and that’s the way our children would play.

Now I’m feeling like a broken record when it comes to this topic (or perhaps about talent in chess) and I’ll try to avoid posting this view again.

All I want to say is that opening is important. To the extent of knowing the setups, general direction of the expected middle game and not stepping on to the mine fields. Beyond that, which particular choice of move number 13 will give 0.13 pawn advantage is meaningless. It’s nice to do it here to generally widen our knowledge so long as we don’t try to put it rigorously in practice.

@Inn2

I’m also like you, except that I prefer to go the Nf3,e3,Nbd2 way if I can’t get my Bg5 in.

Ewfim Bogoljubov had a famous motto:

"When I'm White, I win because I'm White.
When I'm Black I win because I'm Bogo!"

While Bogo was clearly a bit full of himself, this attitude of White playing with the advantage of the first move seems to have been lost a bit among non-professional grade players.  Let's fix that!

Quote:


This is a good point. Its something i've been practising all along unconsciously, until you mentioned it! Some "permanent stop-gaps" which I have relied upon while learning my main lines are the Nimzo  4. e3 + 5. Ne2 (against everthing), 4. Nd2/4. a4 Benko, and 3. f3 against the Grunfeld (fits well with my Samisch KID).

I do think that it is very difficult for White to be theory-less and still seek an initiative after 1. d4 d5  though, and imho there is no avoiding theory here, which is why most of my opening study have been dedicated to cutting edge QGD/slav lines.

You appearantly have not answered yet the questions I asked in my first reply of this thread:

What to do against:
The Najdorf, the Svesjnikov and the Petrov?

or:

The Nimzo-Indian/Queen's Indian?

This certainly will help you to make up your mind.

Quote:


Agreed.

Top

I am a KID player myself and I find some of the negative comments here against it quite amusing  

There is no doubt that to play the KID well you have to do some work, but if you do that work the results canbe very rewarding.

The statement that all d4 players love playing against the KID is also a curious one, but in my practice none of my opponents seemed particularly comfortable at the board and more than 50% of them that chose the Classical usually ended up getting mated, often in embarrassing fashion. Strangely enough many of those mated chose the Bayonet Attack (Kramnik Style), as many Whites of all levels think that this is an easy line to play.  

Lets try to remember that the game's strongest two chess players, namely Bobby Fischer and Gary Kasparov used the KID as their main defence on the road to becoming World Chess champion. That should be a seal of approval in itself.

The Nimzo Indian is perhaps the 'soundest' defence to 1.d4, but its not a complete defence as it mustbe supplemented with the Bogo Indian or Benoni, which is an additional work load.

As usual there is no free lunch, since every major defence has its pros and cons. Therefore, what every player must decide for himself, is which of these major defences suits his style best and make his choices accordingly.

Top

What really tickles me is that openings seem to get  chosen just for the amount of work that is thought to be connected with it, and not for the kind of positions you can get with it...
And I think that basically the amount of work to be done remains equal. I mean,  I cannot imagine that the choice of this or that opening move could substantially limit the number of possible positions arising from it...

"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?"

You left out a lot Prince-Nez

For the kings pawn there also is the: The modern, philidor, latvian, St.George which an Im in michigan plays , owens, daring defenses is the name of the forum for a reason. The whole point at least in my point of view is to not just discuss the topical lines but also the fun side lines sound or unsound. I playa sicilian Najdorf no less but i also love to play owens defense. Just because its not common doesnt meen that you shouldnt know alittle about it. The Elaphant gambit is very unnerving if you have never seen it as white.

And compared to the Najdorf which i havea few losses i have never lost with owens defense in tournament or club play. Why because people are like what the hell is he playing.

So preparation for both is important but i dont think playing either is easier. So what ever you play play with what you feel is right.

Hi,

Nimzo/QID vs KID:  it always seems to me the KID is a bad choice psychologically against 1. d4 players. All 1. d4 players like a stable space advantage, and the KID concedes it. Not that I think the KID is a "bad" opening, (my choice of Makogonov's 5. h3/ Samisch actually shows how much I respect it!), but I can tell you the KID makes all 1. d4 players happy

In fact the nimzo is the No. 1 problem for 1. d4 players.

workload: You also need more work with the KID. White has too many different setups. But as a bonus you can use it against 1. c4, 1. Nf3.

Tromp:  You could lump all black defences starting with 1... Nf6 as "indian defences", and i think the Tromp is the strongest Anti-Indian (much like Bb5/c3 are the strongest Anti-Sicilians). It is by far, more potent than the torre/colle/london. My repertoire is main line 1. d4 and 2. c4. But the tromp is a nice surprise weapon indeed.

Oh, I forgot to mention the Dutch as well.    

Quote:



Bobby Fischer played the exchange Ruy.

What is strange?  I thought the debate was essentially the Queen's Gambit (i.e. d4 followed eventually by c4) v. e4.   1. e4 players can't avoid the Sicilian while the Tromp is an entirely different opening (What is the QGD of the Tromp?) and not as good as you imply.   The other point on this is that white has very reasonable/strong alternatives to the open Sicilian in the form of Bb5 and, yes, even c3.

Bent Larsen once asked about the open Sicilian, "Why should white give up his d pawn for black's c pawn?"  A good question, indeed.

Btw, on an unrelated but similar question (and leaving aside questions of style) what do you think would take more work to play: the KID or the Nimzo/QID/Bogo?
I hope you don't mind my asking.  Despite our disagreement, you are clearly very knowledgeable.

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

If your concern is the "drawish" theoretical lines, I would go for e4. You tend to meet 1 .. e5 a lot less when the rating rises as most black players dont like to run into "pet" openings like the king's gambit and some openings where it is hard to grab the initiative like the 4 knights and scotch. A lot of the players in my club would love to play a Berlin or closed Spanish with black, but dont play e5 for that reason.

If you're worried about the berlin, just play the scotch and play d4 against the Petrov.

When considering picking up 1. d4, you should ask yourself two questions:

1) what to do against the nimzo
2) what to do against 1. d4 d5 (especially QGD and slav/semi-slav).

If you prefer facing the nimzo to the sicilian I guess 1. d4 is a better choice? i find this comparison apt, because the nimzo is somewhat like the sicilian... in that black has an extremely sound position and yet can play for a win.

The other comparison is: do you prefer to face the QGD and slav/semislav, or face the Petroff and Berlin Ruy?

for me 1. d4 is a no-brainer choice.

Maybe I should add that I'm not looking for quick fixes. I want reliable lines that I can play both in OTB and CC games. I don't mind studying theory. (I haven't studied much opening theory but I'm willing to change.) My OTB rating is 2070 and CC rating is probably 2300.