Latest Updates:
Normal Topic 1.d4 > 1.e4 for me (Read 3739 times)
drkodos
God Member
*****
Offline


I see....stars.

Posts: 778
Location: Jupiter, and beyond
Joined: 03/29/07
Re: 1.d4 > 1.e4 for me
Reply #1 - 12/04/07 at 17:27:41
Post Tools
Interesting.

I was an e4 player for 3 decades with recent shift to 1.d4 and have found a good many systems (Botvinnik Sem-Slav) that are every bit as sharp as anything I got into as white.


I also do not assume a causal relationship between switching wihich pawn to open with and a marked improvement, if only because you state that it occured simultaneously to you "taking chess more seriously,"  (Which I suggest is the pricipal reason for improvement -- coupled with any hard work you may have done).  My own rating dropped faster than Brittney Spears panties when The Globe shows up, but that' another sordid affair I won't go too far into ....so to speak.


As for the Petroff, no doubt I started not liking it as white, but have since started enjoying it as Black.  But, I also feel that white has excellent practical chances against it and that a plus can be acheived in a number of lines at white's disposal.

With regard to opening knowledge favoring black because "black only has to know one system", I am not so sure, and am inclined to disagree. At the very least, black needs one system for each of white's opening salvos AND within each opening tree branch. There is often times that either side can create trasposition into another system, which may be seemingly unrelated (1.e4 v. 1. d4 wise), as for example the crossroads that occur between the Panov-Botvinnik attack of the Caro-Kannot and the NID (and even some pure QGDs).  So, in this case, whichever road you took INTO the intersection, you need to know where the other three roads go in order to make educated choice, so knowledge of one system ain't gonna cut it when the opposing player decides they ain't dancin to the same music you're hearing.

In fact, I think that flexibility and ability to transpose (or threaten to!) is what good players aim for.

Either way, to me, one of the inherrantly marvelous aspects of the game is that there are possibly as many "correct" & differing opinions as there are belly-buttons in the world.
  

I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
battleangel
Ex Member
*



1.d4 > 1.e4 for me
12/04/07 at 17:05:32
Post Tools
next year after the local congress I will commence to play 1.d4 again.
I played 1.d4 followed by c4 in my entire youth for about 8 years, but without much theory,
then after taking chess more seriously, I decided to switch to 1.e4,
I improved my chess quite much lately, also my knowledge on openings,
1.e4 is a bit like the french defence with its exchange and steinitz variation, 1.e4 can be ultrasharp, 
sharper than any 1.d4 opening (sicilian), but it can also be more dull, duller than any 1.d4 opening (1. ... e5)... with 1.d4 you better know what you are likely to get ... and tbh. I'm not sure if Bishop moves giving the black player tempi to develop his queenside with a6 b5 are maintaining the opening advantage for white ... and petroff is just Sad I don't see a good way to fight it ...also you have to know a lot of theory in 1.e4, much more than in 1.d4, I'm also not so well in remembering moves, and opening knowledge normally favours the black side, because black only has to know one system, white so many more ... so 1.d4 is for me ... soon
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo