Why are d4 openings considered more drawish (less sharp) • page 1/3 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

I've heard this a lot. But why would d4 openings provide fewer opportunities for attacking chess?

The d4 pawn is protected by the queen, so by nature is is safer to play than the king's pawn. E4 also opens up more diagonals.

tc-sanithu

#3

Because it provides more opportunities for defensive chess

Tixon2021

#4

вот панапридумывают непонятные имина

tpr

#5

#1
"d4 dull & drawish" - Fischer
One point is that after 1 e4 white can always push for d4 as Qd1 covers it, while after 1 d4 black can prevent e4 with either 1...d5 or 1...Nf6. In that case white has to settle for the more tame e3. So the game is slower in its development and less sharp.
Nevertheless, AlphaZero after playing games against itself came to favor 1 d4, mainly because of the Berlin Defence against 1 e4.
Attacking chess and tactics are a separate chapter: attacking chess and tactics can result from 1 d4 as well as from 1 e4.
Kasparov for example has played nice attacking games with 1 d4 as well as with 1 e4.

#1 "d4 dull & drawish" - Fischer One point is that after 1 e4 white can always push for d4 as Qd1 covers it, while after 1 d4 black can prevent e4 with either 1...d5 or 1...Nf6. In that case white has to settle for the more tame e3. So the game is slower in its development and less sharp. Nevertheless, AlphaZero after playing games against itself came to favor 1 d4, mainly because of the Berlin Defence against 1 e4. Attacking chess and tactics are a separate chapter: attacking chess and tactics can result from 1 d4 as well as from 1 e4. Kasparov for example has played nice attacking games with 1 d4 as well as with 1 e4.

TemporarySanity

#6

I remommend playing both. I got slightly bored of playing 1.e4 all the time.

dboing

edited

#7

What is wrong about drawing? isn't it more interesting that way? no secret long haul sharp tit for tat far in the horizon, that only the near-non-human tree searches could see, in real-time?

But I took the op question as one of genuine curiosity about chess in general, not just what to play in one's progression to glory. And I am liking the replies so far. I hope more of the same kind would keep coming. Not a which "repertoire" should I play question. But i may be wrong.

Boredom, is a good guide though.

Edit: i guess i tripped over my own cir-convoluted thoughts. Simpler. considered drawish: good. it means longer fun playing chess, not knowing what will happen until later in the game...

What is wrong about drawing? isn't it more interesting that way? no secret long haul sharp tit for tat far in the horizon, that only the near-non-human tree searches could see, in real-time? But I took the op question as one of genuine curiosity about chess in general, not just what to play in one's progression to glory. And I am liking the replies so far. I hope more of the same kind would keep coming. Not a which "repertoire" should I play question. But i may be wrong. Boredom, is a good guide though. Edit: i guess i tripped over my own cir-convoluted thoughts. Simpler. considered drawish: good. it means longer fun playing chess, not knowing what will happen until later in the game...

andrewneimann

#8

I've heard that too, but I noticed that some of the players who said that, were really bad positional players, and then I realized that I became one of them, and started to analyze the resulting position that arise after 1.d4,d5 or 1.d4,Nf6 2.c4 because those are the spirit of our game, the queen pawn games are highly important to the study and development of our chess.

Fischer himself was kind of silly for said that, in general, he becames really stupid with some of his oppinion, and I am a big fan of his play, but not for that reason I became blind to some of his nonsense. Actually, one of the most important games played during the 1972 WCC was the sixth game, were he played a typical queen pawn opening, altought he started with 1.c4.

The 1.d4 games depends of the kind of game that both players decide to enter, for example: White plays 1.d4, and black responds with 1...Nf6! (which in my oppinion is strongest move alvailable at move 1 for black with 1...d5 altogether) and from here black can play a great amount of system to fight for an advantage, playing sharp and dynamically with ...g6 (Grunfeld and KID), or play something safer like Nimzo or Slav defense, which offers great chances to fight for equality or even an edge, right from the opening.

The thing with 1.d4 is that too many players, (amateurs between 1000 to 2100) plays 1.d4?! just to avoid the big main lines of the Ruy Lopez, Sicilian or French Defense and decide to dry the game playing systems, also to avoid sharp and unbalanced fights, thats why the ?!, because they don't understand that 1.d4 is so reliable that you can play extremely sharp or play a truly positional game with the intention of outplay your opponent slowly maneuvering with your pieces and avoiding or stopping his ideas and plans.

I do not play 1.d4 since I understood that when I had like 1500-1600, and decide to play 1.e4 and study tactics, sharp openings and games.

But recently I decide to check my games where I played 1.d4 and discovered that my game was good, (positionally) but really poor in terms of tactics and dynamics intentions. The thing is that I started to play the Colle System, Zukertort system, and Larsen opening, and it offers so many dynamics possibilities!! And I would not appreciate that if my tactic level were not so high like today.

I've heard that too, but I noticed that some of the players who said that, were really bad positional players, and then I realized that I became one of them, and started to analyze the resulting position that arise after 1.d4,d5 or 1.d4,Nf6 2.c4 because those are the spirit of our game, the queen pawn games are highly important to the study and development of our chess. Fischer himself was kind of silly for said that, in general, he becames really stupid with some of his oppinion, and I am a big fan of his play, but not for that reason I became blind to some of his nonsense. Actually, one of the most important games played during the 1972 WCC was the sixth game, were he played a typical queen pawn opening, altought he started with 1.c4. The 1.d4 games depends of the kind of game that both players decide to enter, for example: White plays 1.d4, and black responds with 1...Nf6! (which in my oppinion is strongest move alvailable at move 1 for black with 1...d5 altogether) and from here black can play a great amount of system to fight for an advantage, playing sharp and dynamically with ...g6 (Grunfeld and KID), or play something safer like Nimzo or Slav defense, which offers great chances to fight for equality or even an edge, right from the opening. The thing with 1.d4 is that too many players, (amateurs between 1000 to 2100) plays 1.d4?! just to avoid the big main lines of the Ruy Lopez, Sicilian or French Defense and decide to dry the game playing systems, also to avoid sharp and unbalanced fights, thats why the ?!, because they don't understand that 1.d4 is so reliable that you can play extremely sharp or play a truly positional game with the intention of outplay your opponent slowly maneuvering with your pieces and avoiding or stopping his ideas and plans. I do not play 1.d4 since I understood that when I had like 1500-1600, and decide to play 1.e4 and study tactics, sharp openings and games. But recently I decide to check my games where I played 1.d4 and discovered that my game was good, (positionally) but really poor in terms of tactics and dynamics intentions. The thing is that I started to play the Colle System, Zukertort system, and Larsen opening, and it offers so many dynamics possibilities!! And I would not appreciate that if my tactic level were not so high like today.

andrewneimann

#9

#7
1.d4 openings are not dull and drawish, the reason why do GM's play it is because his positional understanding is so high that they are always finding a way to disturb the opponent position with his ideas and plans. They sometimes avoid sharp games because his opponent is so good calculating like them, so they don't need to play "drawish and teorethical games" like the Gothenburg Variation of the Najdorf Defense, for example. In amateurs levels the draw possibilities are just a 32% (this is just an approximate number), because almost all of the games are decide by tactics.

#7 1.d4 openings are not dull and drawish, the reason why do GM's play it is because his positional understanding is so high that they are always finding a way to disturb the opponent position with his ideas and plans. They sometimes avoid sharp games because his opponent is so good calculating like them, so they don't need to play "drawish and teorethical games" like the Gothenburg Variation of the Najdorf Defense, for example. In amateurs levels the draw possibilities are just a 32% (this is just an approximate number), because almost all of the games are decide by tactics.

andrewneimann

#10

The final thing with "why would d4 openings provide fewer opportunities for attacking chess?" is because in terms of the pieces they enter in contact later in the game, and it seems like they are not attacking nothing. Actually you can play with powerful attacking ideas like the Queens Gambit Declined, exchange variation, where exist at least 2-5 plans for white to play this position, where he really attacks the black positions. For example the minority attack or the position that arise after castle queenside.