A Crash Course In Understanding 1.d4

Introduction

Ten years ago, I was a very dogmatic coach, who believed that was only 'one best way' to master chess.

I had only just become an International Master, and I was determined to find this 'one best way', both to achieve my full potential as a chess player, and to help my students to improve as rapidly as possible.

First I'll share with you my coaching philosophy ten years ago, as it's quite interesting to look back on the typical strategic mistakes I noticed players of different levels making at the time.

The Good Openings And The Bad Openings

Have you heard of a Soviet chess trainer named Vladimir Zak?

Born in 1911, he was the head trainer of the famous 'Pioneers' Palace' in Leningrad, training many great Soviet players - including World Champion Boris Spassky, Viktor Korchnoi (considered by some to be the greatest player never to become world champion), Gata Kamsky and Alex Yermolinsky.

One of his main philosophies for the opening was that it's very important for young players to start with classical openings - 1.e4 as White, 1.e4 e5/1.d4 d5 as Black - to build up an understanding of the most 'fundamental' positions and pawn structures. Much like the Dutch Chess coaching system more recently, he encouraged young players to play aggressively with White, starting out with gambits and open positions before graduating to more main lines.

Correcting A Common Misunderstanding

I'll talk a fair bit about the 'initiative' in this post. For those who don't understand what this means - the initiative is basically a fancy way of describing being in control of the game - that you are making a flow of threats that the opponent is forced to respond to. (If the opponent can ignore the threats with stronger threats of their own, they will take back the initiative). A real life example would be having the ball in football - you need to possess the ball to score a goal.

And in chess, you can't win without taking control of the game (taking the initiative) - unless the opponent scores an 'own goal' by blundering, but once you get to a solid level, you'll need to do more than just wait for the opponents to hang pieces or hang mate to win most of your games.

Discussing Chess Before Facebook/Reddit

When I was a teenager, I spent a lot of time (anonymously) discussing chess improvement on various chess forums (Facebook wasn't so huge back then), and one of the greatest influences on my approach at the time was the late Mark Morss, who insisted that all players below 1400/1600ish should play only open positions with White and Black, in order to build up a strong feel for the initiative.

Incidentally, when we look at the early games of the very best players in the world, we usually find a pattern that they started with quite aggressive and dynamic openings early in their career, thus getting a very strong feel for the initiative, attacking chess and how to pressure the opponent into mistakes in general.

These were the reasons why I would be quite horrified seeing young players exclusively playing closed openings like the French as Black, or 1.d4/2.c4 as White, only to manoeuvre around aimlessly for the next 20 moves, having no idea of how to play the arising positions. And if you were going to play the Italian, for instance, you'd better play it with d4, or at least the Evans Gambit/4.Ng5 Two Knights, to get an open position with direct play.

Becoming More Flexible

Years later, I realized that playing the French and King's Indian as a kid doesn't mean that you will never become a Grandmaster :)

I later came to realize that the issues I was noticing in other players were not the fault of their opening choices, but rather, that they were only trying to memorize moves (much like the Chessable generation of today), and didn't have any understanding of how to play the arising positions once they left book.

For instance, I found that my students who played the London all the time as White were actually improving fairly quickly, once they understood (through specific examples) that it is actually an attacking system for White, rather than a system opening where you play the same moves without thinking.

When Should You Start Playing 1.d4 As White?

In my view, you should start playing 1.d4 as White in one of the following two cases:

1. Ideally, when you are already fairly comfortable in the more open 1.e4 positions, and want to balance your strong dynamic feel and tactical vision with improving your positional play, by mastering more strategic, closed positions.

2. If you are getting thrashed in the open 1.e4 positions, even after playing through all the games of Greco, Morphy and Anderssen (the greats of the Romantic era).

In my case, I started playing 1.d4 (followed by 2.c4) from early 2002, when I was just starting to play 'open' (not just junior) tournaments, and it suited my style quite well, as my positional understanding was a lot stronger than my dynamic play at the time.

Why 2.c4 And Not 2.Nc3?

If you are totally new to 1.d4, you may be wondering - why does White most often follow up with 2.c4 after 1.d4 d5 or 1.d4 Nf6, as opposed to a developing move like 2.Nf3 or 2.Nc3?

Well, in the position after 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6, you will notice that White really struggles to achieve an easy pawn break to pressure the d5-pawn:

https://lichess.org/study/AgiCDyz2/QNFBggXT

Of course, we can't call 2.Nc3 a mistake - the Jobava London with 3.Bf4 has a large loyal following as a way to reach creative positions. But the lack of a clear pawn break for White (c2-c4 is blocked by the knight, e4 would be an unsound pawn sacrifice, and f3 is usually too slow after the 'Queen's Gambit reversed' with ...c5!) means that Black finds it easier to equalize here than after 2.c4, objectively speaking. (I was originally thinking of making the article about my secret weapon against the Jobava London, but I'll share it after my tournament)

Incidentally, this is also the reason why 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nc6 would be a mistake from Black - he can't challenge White's centre with ...c5, while ...e5 will be either too well defended (e.g. after 3.Bf4), or White will beat Black to the punch with a quick c4.

https://lichess.org/study/AgiCDyz2/zqAvrUNd

Notice how even if Black were to attack the d4-pawn with all his minor pieces, White could play c3 or e3, and Black would basically never be threatening to win the d4-pawn until he attacks it with a pawn of his own.

The Most Basic Ideas Of 2.c4

Now that we understand the importance of challenging Black's centre with a pawn - 1.d4 d5 2.c4 and only later Nc3, so that we might actually threaten to win the d5-pawn in the future - let's see some of the most basic ideas in action, which people often take for granted when drilling their repertoires.

The first thing to understand is that, unlike the average King's Gambit enjoyer (the memes still make me laugh), we are actually not sacrificing a pawn. Not because we are fraidy-cats who faint at the sight of any blood on the chess board, but because Black is actually losing if he tries to hang on to the c4-pawn at all costs after 2...dxc4 3.e3.

Greco already demonstrated this in the early 17th century:

https://lichess.org/study/AgiCDyz2/CuOM1ObI

Of course, the Queen's Gambit Accepted is not a bad opening for Black - it's just that he should instead play it with the idea of returning the pawn with 3...Nf6 4.Bxc4 e6 5.Nf3 c5 6.0-0 a6, when the idea of ...dxc4 was to liquidate the centre as a way of preparing central counterplay with ...c5. If Black is able to get in the 'Meran' setup of ...b5/...Bb7/...Nbd7, all his minor pieces will be actively placed, and his position will be totally fine.

On the other hand, White can also be happy, as the exchange of the d5-pawn for the c4-pawn leaves White with a pleasant 2-1 central majority (d4/e3 vs. e6).

Copying Doesn't Work

Another point we understand from Greco's old games/analyses is that, when we are first to attack Black's centre, it stops Black from copying us effectively. (Think of the dodgy Damiano Petroff with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4 4.Qe2 Qe7 5.Qxe4 for a very direct example of the dangers of mindlessly copying White.

So, if Black plays a move like 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5, copying the Queen's Gambit, the fact we can capture first gives us an early initiative:

https://lichess.org/study/AgiCDyz2/rjZln7sX

The Dangers Of Pure Piece Play

One of the best principles I ever heard about the 1.d4/2.c4 openings was said by GM Evgeny Agrest: 'No pawn break = no plan!'

Our next game shows how that rings true even when the first set of pawns are traded:

https://lichess.org/study/AgiCDyz2/EelGADtG

If Black is not able to challenge White in the centre with a quick ...c5 or ...e5 after the exchange on d4, White will simply dominate the centre for a big advantage. (This happens a lot when I play the Queen's Gambit against sub-1800 players online, by the way).

Undermining The Black Queenside

One of the first themes that Queen's Gambit players typically learn is the idea of undermining Black's queenside structure with moves like a4 and b3 when Black tries to grab the pawn on c4 and then hang on it with the ...b5/...c6 pawn chain.

The following game is very messy, but shows how dangerous White's central pawn mass can be when Black loses the initiative:

https://lichess.org/study/AgiCDyz2/wqFysooz

When I analyzed this game back in 2013, it was particularly instructive to see how effective 6...e5! (instead of the game's 6...a5?) is in disrupting White's momentum and taking back the initiative before White can consolidate with developing moves.

I still remember winning a quick game as Black against a 2100ish rated player in 2009 with this idea as Black in a related version:

https://lichess.org/study/AgiCDyz2/SZdUEkKa

Indeed, I missed a forced win with 7...Nd4!, but we are getting a little off-topic.

The Single Most Important Pawn Structure

What is the single most important pawn structure to understand in chess?

I strongly believed that it is the 'Isolated Queen's Pawn' (IQP) structure, where we have a d-pawn (on d4 as White, or d5 as Black), but no c-pawn or e-pawn beside it.

Such positions give us good attacking chances and a small starting initiative due to our extra space, but on the other hand, we also accept that, if Black fully neutralizes our pressure and trades the right pieces (especially the minor pieces), our d4-pawn is a static weakness that could easily tie our pieces to its (passive) defence.

I could pontificate, but this game between the greatest players of the 1830s, De Labourdonnais and McDonnell, shows how these positions definitely have the spirit of an 1.e4 opening, despite the game starting with 1.d4:

https://lichess.org/study/AgiCDyz2/cDJlMIj8

Master Open Positions First!

By the way, games like this demonstrate why it's important to master open positions before closed positions - because closed positions eventually open up once someone plays a pawn break and then exchanges pawns.

If you don't understand whether the newly opened position is better for you or your opponent, you won't be able to correctly judge when to time the opening of the position. Either you'll open the position too early when your opponent's pieces are better developed, or you'll waste time preparing the break further when you could favourably play it right away, often losing the initiative as a result of your indecisiveness.

This is also why I started the article with the open systems in the Queen's Gambit - where the position is quickly opening up with an early dxc4 by Black.

Playing Against The Isolated Queen's Pawn

In many cases you will also be playing against the Isolated Queen's Pawn with 1.d4/2.c4. The most obvious example of this is the Tarrasch Defence (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5), where a later exchange on either c5 or d4 will leave Black with an isolated d5-pawn. (Black can also sometimes play ...c4, but let's keep things straightforward for the time being).

The following game between the same two best chess players of the 1830s, despite its clear mistakes, shows how Black often struggles to get enough counterplay with the IQP:

https://lichess.org/study/AgiCDyz2/9TcaI15B

Concretely, we are able to actively develop our bishop to g5 to pin the f6-knight. Even though the dark-squared bishop can't attack a pawn on d5 (on the light square), the bishop still participates in the battle to win this pawn by threatening to remove one of its key defenders, the f6-knight.

Likewise, if Black delays ...Nf6 to avoid the Bg5 pin, we can play in the Rubinstein spirit with g3/Bg2/0-0, when the fianchettoed bishop doesn't just protect our castled king against an attack, but will also attack the d5-pawn once the f3-knight moves out of the way.

Advanced Point: If Black wants to play with an IQP against 1.d4, the best way is probably 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 cxd4 6.Qxd4 exd5, as at least in this version Black will gain a tempo against White's awkward queen with ...Nc6 to make up for White getting in his desired 7.Bg5 pin.

The Indians

While there are some Queen's Gambit systems we didn't cover deeply, such as the popular Exchange QGD with 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5 and the Slav Defence with 2...c6, they are complex enough to deserve detailed coverage in a separate article. At least in the Slav, Black will often play ...dxc4 as a way to challenge White's centre with ...c5 and ...e5 in the middlegame anyway, leading to somewhat similar structures to the Queen's Gambit Accepted lines.

You may already know that 1.d4 Nf6 is referred to as the 'Indian Opening', and that is because it was played in many games in the 1850s by Bonnerjee and Somacarana (mostly against John Cochrane during the British occupation of India).

As for 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4, the idea of 2.c4 is that we are preparing Nc3 followed by e4 to control all four central squares, and have three pawns side-by-side in the centre for the maximum flexibility in our structure (as well as taking away good squares for Black's pieces). Of course, rushing the process with 2.Nc3 d5 would leave White without an effective way to attack Black's d5-pawn, as we discussed before.

The Birth Of Hypermodernism

In our first game of Bonnerjee, we see Black play the Nimzo-Indian (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4), with the point that Black is preventing White's d5-break with pieces rather than pawns:

https://lichess.org/study/AgiCDyz2/mpNtMItJ

Indeed, 'hypermodernism' refers to controlling the centre in the opening with our developed pieces, and only later involving the pawns into the fight. (1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 or 2.b3 would be another example of a 'hypermodern' opening).

In the game, Black wasted too much time out of the late opening, which allowed White to dominate the centre and ultimately win the game with his more active pieces. Incidentally, if you were to put the doubled c3-pawn back on b2 in the position after 13...Qh6, we would see the dream position that White is aiming for against the Slav and in the tenser lines of the Queen's Gambit Declined (where White spurns cxd5) - to break with e4 and exchange off the d5-pawn, so that White is the only one with his pawns in the centre.

If Black is not able to free his c8-bishop and challenge the d4-pawn with the ...c5 break in such middlegames, he will suffer for a long time, and most likely lose the game.

The following famous game of Alekhine is a great demonstration of this concept:

https://lichess.org/study/AgiCDyz2/PmgOiJE0

I doubt you will be surprised to learn that virtually all the Soviet Grandmasters knew this example before they turned 12 years old :)

The First King's Indian

The reason we call 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 the 'King's Indian' is because Black fianchettoes his king's bishop.

Of course, I very recently covered my experiences with the King's Indian in this article.

However, it never hurts to see how the earliest games in the opening played out, so that we can learn how to punish typical mistakes by the opponent, and what we are aiming for in the middlegame in terms of plans and pawn breaks.

Here's the first analyzed game between Cochrane and Bonnerjee:

https://lichess.org/study/AgiCDyz2/4d2kRH4k

The King's Indian Can't Be Played Passively!

A pattern you'll notice in these next games is that Black can't play passively and expect to get a playable position, as White has a central space advantage that also means his pieces will develop to more active squares if Black doesn't generate some form of counterplay.

The next game shows how playing on the queenside is way too slow and inefficient when White is massing in the centre:

https://lichess.org/study/AgiCDyz2/8l3AOBnw

The next game is one of the very first with the typical closed KID chain structure of e4/d5/c4 vs. c7/d6/e5. Despite its mistakes, the idea of fixing the f5-pawn as a target with 14.f4!, and realizing that ...e4 often works in White's favour when he can play Nd4 and open the position at the right time with g4, will help you win many games in your playing career:

https://lichess.org/study/AgiCDyz2/kHjdytPC

Finally, we see that the opening of the queenside with ...c6xd5 will sometimes just favour White, as often in these structures White goes to great lengths to play c5 and cxd6 to open up the c-file for queenside play:

https://lichess.org/study/AgiCDyz2/eEAKSvKp

You have probably noticed by now that when the pawns get exchanged, it opens up a file for our rooks and potentially diagonals for our bishops too (not to mention clearing squares for our knights). When two pawns are attacking each other, it is quite likely that there will be an exchange at some stage, and correctly evaluating when the exchange is in your favour (vs. the opponent's) will be crucial in outplaying competent players in these structures.

A Final, Bonus Game

You may recall that in the 1.d4 d5 2.c4 closed structures (with ...e6 or ...c6), White's dream is often to play the e4 break, exchanging the e4-pawn for the d5-pawn to secure a big space advantage in the centre.

That's a structure I'll likely dive into in a later post, as it can arise in many ways and also leads to some very interesting and important 'transformation' structures with the queenside majority vs. central majority when Black plays ...c5 and the c-pawn gets exchanged for White's d-pawn.

However, this does raise a question - what should our plan be when Black plays the 'Stonewall' with ...d5, ...e6, ...c6 and ...f5, stopping our e4 break?

The following win by Steinitz shows how White can take full advantage of the hole on e5:

https://lichess.org/study/AgiCDyz2/7KPZLWkS

Notice how it's not necessarily a problem for us if Black exchanges on e5, as the pawn recapture increases our space advantage, depriving Black's minor pieces of important squares as we prepare to open the position with either an e4 break, or attacking Black's queenside pawn chain as close to the base of the chain as possible with our own pawns. (There's a reason Avrukh recommended the Nc3/Qc2/Rb1/b4-b5 plan against the Stonewall Dutch in his 'Grandmaster Repertoire' book).

Conclusion

To conclude, here are the main points to take away from this article in understanding what White is aiming for (at the absolute simplest level) with 1.d4:

1. We aren't actually sacrificing a pawn with 1.d4 d5 2.c4, as if Black takes on c4, we'll regain the pawn and have a nice 2 to 1 central majority;
2. We will often reach IQP positions in different openings - when we have the IQP, we generally get active play and an early initiative, while the Black IQP positions are typically very pleasant for us, due to our small lead in development (remember the Bg5 pin).
3. The Nimzo-Indian is a good opening, but only if Black either stops White getting in the e4 break (which is the main idea of 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 and 3.Nc3) or gets some concession out of White in the meantime.
4. The King's Indian requires very active and energetic play from Black. If he plays passively after setting up his 'system', he will surely lose.
5. White typically wants to get in the e4 break in the middlegame in the Slav and QGD, since the exchange ...dxe4 leaves White with two pawns in the centre on c4 and d4 without any rival. If Black can't get in ...c5 or ...e5 in the arising structure, there's a pretty high chance he will lose the game.

The Next Step

If you found this article instructive and useful, then I would recommend investing in my Masterclass, with my best chess lessons from 2019 and early 2020 (back when I was still coaching privately).

The training videos in my Masterclass are aimed at a similar level of player to this post (1400-2000+), covering topics such as:

- How To Win With The London As White;
- Dangerous Openings To Play In Blitz/Rapid;
- How To Build Your 1.e4 Repertoire;
- Improving Your Chess Understanding (how to best play with each piece);
- Mastering Different Pawn Structures (including some of the ones I referenced in this article);
- How To Convert Your Advantage In The Endgame with the famed 'Grandmaster Endgame Technique';
- How To Think Like A Grandmaster (including numerous training videos where I record my thought process during games, and test your own skills)

I strongly believe that anyone rated below 2000 who goes through the Masterclass will improve their level by at least 100 points, potentially even more.

If you feel adding 100+ points to your chess level is worth a measly $97, get my Masterclass here :)