1.d4 or 1.e4?
Every game in the latest World Championship between Kramnik and Topalov started with 1.d4. Has 1.e4 become a lost art? Should Topalov have tried 1.e4 against Kramnik? I played both 1.e4 and 1.d4 in my 1996 World Championship match.
Which one is more lethal? What is your take?
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
Well if you look at it purely from a development standpoint, 1. e4 opens up more diagonals for attack – given that the Queen and the King side bishop have been given lines of attack.
1. d4 only gives a direct line of attack for the Queen side bishop.
However it cannot be characterized simply by which is more lethal from a single move. Both can lead into tactical melee’s or into closed positions that are more strategic in nature.
The first move is not so much which is more lethal – it’s what the player can do with it to make it the MOST lethal during the game itself.
I think with 1.d4 white can be creative and play his own ideas.
1.e4 is for agressive players who never heard of the word: ‘Patience’.
Indeed the forcing nature of 1.e4 is ultimately it’s downfall. Weapons like the Petroff, Ruy Lopez and the Najdorf have all been proven to be more than OK!
1.d4 is currently the more dangerous move!
Wasn’t it obvious why Topalov never played 1. e4 against Kramnik? He would have replied with the Petroff and sucked the life out of the game.
I prefer e4 games myself with brutal attacks and so forth.
However in players in the 2700+ category I think which particular opening matters less than the skill behind the board.
Topalov or Kramnik would wipe the floor with a 2000 player even if topa or kram opened with 1. h4?!
Look at the openings in the bullet chess v nigel short.
>>Wasn’t it obvious why Topalov never played 1. e4 against Kramnik? He would have replied with the Petroff and sucked the life out of the game.
Yeah Drawnik with Petrov or Berlin etc. Still one can’t win tournaments by drawing. The time for the topalov e4 games would be when kramnik needed a win (e.g. when the score was even or topalov a point ahead) and kramnik would be forced to play for a win not a drawish opening.
d4!
d4 leaves room for players to set up strategic plans against his opponents. It is suitable for players who do not wish to dive into tactical battle immediately but would prefer positioning play. It is more lethal in the sense that it takes a lot of patience and any first sign of impatience by any player may tilt the game in favour of his opponent.
Since when did e4 become a “lack of patience”? By the same token one could say d4 = fear of tactics.
Ok, I did a little research on this and from the website http://www.chesslab.com you can search for position stats based on over 2 million high level master games after 1.e4 the stats are 38% wins 31% losses and 31% draws and for 1.d4 38% wins 28% losses and 34 % draws. These FACTS speak for themselves both moves give equal opportunity to win although with 1.d4 white can say there is 3% less likely to lose…its quite worthwhile to note that extra 3% did not go into the WIN column for white but into the DRAW column which simply mean white is 3% more likely to draw the position but not to win. Be it as it stands from the FACTS i have presented both 1.e4 and 1.d4 are EQUAL and anonymous is correct when he states that its not so much about the moves in the opening as it the minds of the players making the move. I personally believe that in this match Kramnik vs Topalov the players were fighting a psychological battle the entire match anyway. Topalov playing 1.d4 trying to beat Kramnik in his own “forte” so to speak, thrown in with allegations of “cheating”. Cheating allegations dont hold an unfamiliar place in my mind. I quit playing chess on the “Internet Chess Club” because of the exaggerated use of computer assistance going on. And before one tends to leash out at me about paranoia of cheating like ICC officials have then all you have to do is log onto playchess.com and watch…..every 2 minutes it displays in red that someone used computer assistance and it erases their rating. This is the proper way to handle cheating, but exposing the people who do it. But this is another topic for another day. Members of any organization have a right to know of violations within their organization and the perpetrators, so why should Internet Chess be any different than any other organization?? My conclusion not to play on ICC is not only for these means but I didnt feel like that playing blitz chess was helping me improve (just a personal opinion) and while watching lectures, events etc was very helpful, the “addiction” to playing blitz and bullet chess was exceeding the “need to learn” from the other events and I firmly believe blitz chess is as to chess as smoking is to your health, if i can make an analogy. although smoking helps keep weight off and a grasp on your nerves it is also “bad” for your health as blitz chess is your overall chess game because although it helps with keeping sharp to some extent it conflicts with your planning, methological thought, and the fast pace of the game sets you off-balance for tournament games, if exposed to greatly. I think the answer lies in-between. If you can control the amount of blitz chess you play…fine….personally i cannot i play 1 i play 20 games 🙂 so just a personal analogy to 1.e4 and 1.d4 is just like blitz chess its a personal choice with no inferiority to its alternatives.
I used to be a solely P-K4* player, but recently switched to the Colle and Colle-Zukertort. In my view, both opening moves are equal: either can be positional or tactical, both lead to daring gambits and drawn-out slugfests. It’s really just a matter of choice.
As to the match, I do think toplaov should have varied with e4. By avoiding it, he’s conceding that Kramnik’s Berlin Defense was unbeatable. That made Kramnik’s preparation easier.
*(Hah! The DNLF [Descriptive Notation Liberation Front] strikes again!)
Based on his past history, it wasn’t typical of Topalov to play 1.d4 exclusively. I suspect he did this because he didn’t think he could break Kramnik’s 1.e4 defenses.
In a sense, the match was over right there. If you’re so afraid of your opponent that you are shut out of an opening move you’ve typically played, you’ve already lost.
Kramnik, on the other hand, did precisely what we expected: he played 1.d4, which is quite typical for him.
What about Nf3?
Didn’t Kasparov turn to the reti when he needed a win in the last game of a title match against Karpov?
When reading chess magazines, the majority of commented games seems to start with 1.e4.
Personally I think that 1.e4 is a bit risky, because the pawn is unprotected. Therefore I rather play 1.d4, or even 1.Nf3 to prepare it.
🙂
Greetings, anonymous2
My take is that kramnik spent a lot of time preparing vs topalov’s e4. As we can see kramnik was ill prepared in the openings due to topalov’s choice of d4.
It was topalov’s strategy and it worked, except for his gross blunders.
ok well 1.Nf3 stats are 1.37% wins 26% losses 37% draws and 1.c4 stats are identical to 1.d4 38%-28%-34%. so i find it quite interesting that 1.e4 1.d4 1.nf3 1.c4 all are within 1% after millions of games played between masters.
Those stats back up the point that its not the opening, its the player.
yes 1.d4 had nothing to do with Topalov’s inability to succeed for example Topalov is known as a good attacking player and he missed a chance to win easily early on game 2 or game 3? by missing Rxg4 and Qc7. That game shocked me that Topalov played Qc2, which in my mind i thought he was locked onto the idea of the queen penetrating along the c-file and after he played Qg6+ i was totally shocked and confused. to be honest even i saw the Rxg4 and Qc7 idea.
Jimmd,
Posting FACTS here will get you run off this board faster than Danailov at an American Standard Convention.
🙂
The question is vague: 1.e4 is more lethal at lower classes. It evens out as skill in chess increases, i.e., ratings increase. The reason for this is that 1.d4 is more forgiving in the opening, meaning black can probably get away with a small error here or there. No so much with 1.e4…
I have never played 1.e4 in my life, which means something since I’m not the youngest anymore.
If you play e4 you feel the weakness of the square f2/f7. But to attack those squares is not much of a strategical plan, it’s more like wating for a mistake.
The only similair sitution while playing 1.d4 is when the opponent choses Budapest Gambit and attacks the f2 pawn with 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.de Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5
This is a feeling for white like having played 1.e4. I don’t like the feeling, but I have learnt to deal with this opening.
Bobby Fisher said about 1. e4
“best by test”
🙂
“Bobby Fisher said about 1. e4
“best by test”
:-)”
But Fischer is far from being important in today’s chess 😉
1.d4 gives an advantage that is hard to prove, but I think Kramnik is right by chosing the Katalan. The tradidionell Queens Gambit with playing the bishop at e2/d3/c4 is not good enough. I think that even the very old black plan (Re8;Nf8;Ne6) is solid enough for full play.
I think there is a distinct difference between 1.e4 and 1.d4.
They both lead to advantages but the advantage is different.
1.e4 usually leads to an advantage in initiative usually on the kingside.
1.d4 leads to a more stable advantage not based on initiative but play on a-d files/better pieces etc. As a result 1.d4 gives White a small but stable initiative for a long time (Karpov).
1.d4 usually leads to a closed game with a locked center while 1.e4 leads to more tactical games with an open center.I stress usually.
Both leads to advantages but in general terms the players who love 1.e4 usually are masters of the initiative e.g. tal, fischer, morphy, kasparov and anand. Masters of 1.d4 are solid positional players like Karpov, Capablanca, Kramnik and so on.
Some world champions broke these rules like Alekhine but that is a topic for a different post.
1.d4 is boring. I want a 1. e4 champion. This slavish toilet match was a shame.
If topalov wasn’t trailing practically the entire match he probably would have given 1. e4 a try.
The answer to the question of “which is more lethal, 1.d4 or e4?” depends on who white is and who his opponent is! 😉
I think we should “ask” computers what do “they” “think”. Make them calculate their opening without an opening book for as long as possible and see what they chose, this will be really interesting.
I think we should “ask” computers what do “they” “think”. Make them calculate their opening without an opening book for as long as possible and see what they chose, this will be really interesting.
You can do that right now. It isn’t interesting, because even the best computers can’t see beyond the early middlegame.
You can give a comp 20 bishops on white squares + 1 pawn on h against one black king who is already in the corner. They will never find it is draw.
What about Nf3?
Didn’t Kasparov turn to the reti when he needed a win in the last game of a title match against Karpov?
Actually Kasparov needed a draw and played 1.Nf3 only to offer a draw when he was winning/much better.
If you’re in the mood, 1.e4 is potentially more lethal. The reason is not complex. It’s that after 1.e4, d4 is easily achievable quickly and approximately soundly against any reply – whilst the reverse isn’t true after 1.d4. If you really want to attack right from move 1, the king’s pawn is the way to go.
(Of course this means you have to go for scary lines v the Najdorf, and weigh up what to do about the Marshall. Nothing comparable after 1.d4.)
Statistically, 1.d4 is better. The problem with 1.e4 is the Sicilian, it’s so strong. In the Chessbase 2006 database, white has only 51% against 1…c5, there’s absolutely nothing as good against 1.d4.
Wow, i do not even feel worthy of opining on such a question– particularly when asked by a legendary world-class GM rated about 2590!
If Capablanca, Botvinnik, Fischer, Kramnik, et al cannot reach a consensus then I do not believe the blogspot readers will either. (Despite ardent arguments either way!)
I am rated 1720 and i prefer e4 because i can wrap my brain around the open game more easily than the nuances of QG or Grunfeld/KID. I think 1.e4 is more intuitive and more educational for players at my level. And 1.e4 reduces Black’s opportunities to build a solid/passive fortress position.
1. b3 still beats them all
e4 is more lethal, following my games !
No Petroff, I play only Vienna games, and my opponents definitely loathe it ! 😉
d4 is close or semi close/open system,
e4 is open or semi close/open system.
Kramnik is a d4 player! Futhermore he was the no. 1 anti-e4 player, without really playing the Sicilian seriously.
After his match with Fritz he started to play the e4! He met various sicilion and Sharper respond… and his rating drop(other factors too..). at his match with the solid Leko.. his d4 record in classical chess was not good… so he continue to play e4 even to the last game! and there were no sicilian at all!
Kramnik is really not a good e4 player though! he has too much trouble at sharp position.
Topolov is a tactical aggresor… he can play e4 and d4! He choose d4 because Kramnik has many anti-e4 weopon, like the berlin and petroff. Those small advantage don’t suit Topolov stlye. So topolov would be more likely to win as black than as a white e4.
Kramnik when he was already young was known as a d4 monster. After his match with Kasparov he became an anti-e4 black player. After a while people/oppenent decided to be an anti-d4 aggainst Kramnik. Too many draw. So Kramnik had to open up and start playing the e4 which in my opinion he was not so sucessful.
After this,We will see more e4 from Topolov… that is a certain. With Kramnik is not so certain… if he want to hide his weopon and preperation he may play the e4 again and untill the next Wchamp!
Neither e4 nor d4…
1.Nc3 rules !
ChessBazaar
Neither is any good!
1.d4 is a dead draw against the Slav and Queen’s Gambit Accepted.
1.e4 is a dead draw against the Petroff. And the Najdorf is unbeatable!
1.c4! is the only good move and avoids a lot of book.
Kasparov played 1.c4! in that must win game against Karpov in 1987. It turned into a Reti, but a good type for White. Black has much better ways of meeting the 1.Nf3 move-order.
Fischer abandoned 1.e4 for a large part of his 1972 match against Spassky, and turned to 1.c4! With the latter he got 2 wins; with 1.e4 he got only one, and that was only because Spassky played the inferior black side of a Lopez. When Spassky used the Sicilian, Fischer got absolutely nowhere!
Hey….whats wrong with C4??
I used to see this old slav at my old club who always played h4 and always got a great position…I think its a matter of taste….whatever makes you play your game correctly…..thats all.
yeah I agree whatever gets you the positions you play well then that is what you should play. Saying d4 or e4 is better is like saying blondes are cuter than brunettes…..its whatever works for you I think….haha..that 3 percent comment is hillarious….can you imagine thinking like this?? haha..I guess even chess players can be funny.
e4 is more lethal – it results in more decisive games, that cannot be disputed
what I like about chess however is that both e4 and d4 have approximately the same percentages – it would be extremely hard to prove that either move is objectively better than the other and it ultimately comes down to personal style or preference as to which opening is played. I think it gives the game so much more character and chess would be poorer if any opening was ever proved to be objectively better than all the others.