If the open sicilian scares you or you have lousy results, it may pay off to in stead of studying opening lines to play through some annotated games by the following players:
-Keres. No one has equalled his score as white against it and he was a real pioneer in certain lines.
-Geller and Karpov for lines with Be2
-Some other players that play very interesting as white: Ljubojevic, Velimirovic, Shirov, Short and Anand.

wolfsblut wrote on 05/13/12 at 07:44:06:


Even against other Sicilians than the Najdorf, for some reason I still lost quite quickly compared to 1. d4. I lost many against Kan, Taimanov, Scheveningen, and Sveshnikov, etc. I think the reason of the Open Sicilian for most of the main lines is to attack, but for some reason I usually ended up losing to the attack. Maybe because in the Sicilian there are a lot of kingside attacks for both sides, where both sides must value every move as a possible resource to support the attack. The only main variations in 1. d4 where I remember this happens with frequency that I can think of are the Mar Del Plata King's Indian and Botvinnik Semi-Slav.

Dear Pingudon and all,

I really have the same problem: 1.e4 or 1.d4??????
I`am still undicided, but I think that losing quicker with 1.e4 after an error (This is also the opinion of Kaufman in his new book and the reason why he switched to 1.d4) is overrated: If you play razorsharp things like 6.Bg5 against the Najdorf it may become true but if you play the positional 6.Be2 surely not! If you play the Anti-Moscow-Gambit against the Semi-Slav it become maybe true, but if you play some quiet stuff.....
In my opinion things like the following are important:
1.How do you like the postions after the first moves in the most usual openings?
2.Is there a chessplayer which chess you like very much?
3.How much time you will investigate?
greetings
wolfsblut

Well, I played the 1-minute game two nights ago at 03.00. But the 1. e4 problems I was referring to was a few years in my tournament career, for much the entire time that I played 1. e4. I was trying to say that if one will make errors in the opening, my advice according to my experience was that, if I made opening mistakes in 1. d4 I could try to rectify my position and try to win in the middlegame/endgame, but if I made opening mistakes in 1. e4, mostly when playing the Open Sicilian, I usually got mated around move 25 or lost massive amounts of material.

My most embarassing games are when I have played the Open Sicilian and Main Line Spanish. My last game with 1. e4 was against Karavade, when I had a lost position around move 22 playing against the Sicilian Scheveningen. In addition to getting lost positions around move 25 against the Sicilian, I had a lost position against the Chigorin Spanish when playing against a GM a few years ago. I already messed up on move 15 to get a =/+ position, then a completely lost position on move 20 

fling wrote on 05/12/12 at 08:17:19:


I meant if one makes an inaccuracy in the opening playing 1. d4 and does not have a positionally lost position around move 15, but rather an equal position or in the worst scenario, a slightly worse position, at least one can play chess and try to win the game. In my experiences if I make small (not major) mistakes in the opening with 1. d4, where the position is definitely not positionally lost but equal, I can at least still play the game. With 1. e4, if I make a small mistake in the opening, I get mated before move 25, so that was the difference to which I was referring: small inaccuracy with 1. d4 meaning losing the +/=, whilst small inaccuracy with 1. e4 meaning I lose within one hour of the game starting, and I go to the restaurant to have an early dinner  

Pingudon wrote on 05/11/12 at 22:23:38:


If you aren't sure, play both. 

I feel like with 1. d4, I do not have to spend as much time trying to survive the opening as I do with 1. e4, since somehow 1. e4 seems to provide sharper positions than 1. d4, especially Open Sicilian. When I play the Open Sicilian, which was quite frequent as a 1. e4 player, I was in many positions where every move was very tense and I felt as if I could lose at any moment if I made one inaccurate move in the opening and middlegame. Apart from a few openings against 1. d4, such as the Botvinnik Semi-Slav, I find that usually the positions are not as sharp as those from 1. e4. So to me at least, whilst both 1. d4 and 1. e4 require much work to learn the main lines, with 1. d4 generally there seem to be less sharp positions than those from 1. e4.

Depends on whether you prefer to face the Grunfeld and Slav or the Berlin and Najdorf.

Eventually though you'll have to play (or study at least) both 1.e4 and 1.d4 if you really want to improve. You'd be missing out if you never played the Queen's Gambit, Indian defences, Ruy Lopez and Open Sicilian.