I have always played d4 over e4. I find d4 games to be more positional and somewhat "boring". This is why I have tried transitioning to e4 due to its aggressive and sharp aspects which makes chess a beautiful game in my eyes. What is your opinion on the differences between the two?
d4 games, I find, require more patience - often a lot of positioning for future action before things break loose.
A question the two greatest chess minds have differed on. Kasparov - "I have found that after 1.d4 there are more opportunities for richer play."
Fischer - "e4 is the best by test"
My view is if you want to play a fun tactical game, e4 is best, and I play it every game as white.
Look at the games of Morphy and Steinitz. Great stuff.
Its a matter of style. You should experiment with different openings - e4, d4, Nf3, c4, g3 and even f4. They all tend to create diferent games. e4 openings tend to be more tactical. It also depends on what your opponents play against you. If you play d4, and your opponent plays the benko gambit or grunfeld, for example, things will get tactical. If your opponent wants to block the center and play a strategic game, then he can do that even if you play e4.
I play Nf3 to improve my positional play.
I dont like d4 its so pasive it game to the endgame.e4 come quickly to win or lost
If you like tactic play e4 if you play positional d4
d4 is such boring omg better Nf3
Yes Nf3 is more sharp than d4!
I started with 1.e4 and after I made some progression in my chess I more and more found out what I like and in which type of positions I am able to play the chess I like and so I am playing 1.d4 now.
Here opening theory is not so important (not so many extremely complicated and tricky lines to avoid or to be prepared like its the case after 1.e4) and the game is more a strategical than a tactical battle.
Best wishes
Nada
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.