I believe I've also heard -- more than once -- that d4 lends itself to "system" openings moreso than e4. But I'm also not quite sure why this would be.
To be clear, this isn't intended to be a d4 vs. e4 debate on the mertis, but a more fundamental conceptual question about why one would be more amendable to "system" openings, and the other wouldn't.
What would be some examples of very aggressive d4 openings?
Are there examples of "system" e4 openings?
As a d4 player (although not a very good one) I agree with this notion. In most positions after the first move I find that there aren't many moves that can be described as "action packed." The positions are mostly equal and, unless you don't castle (or long castle) and push all your kingside pawns towards the enemy king, the game is very dull.
When most people think a sharp chess game, they assume a quick mating attack. These attacks are mostly supported by a B on c4. In a QP opening, the bishop has a hard time reaching this square, so no quick mating attacks in the opening. Oddly enough, in the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, the bishop reaches c4, but long-term pressure is often the compensation rather than the attack.
@watermelonbiscuit Examples of agressive d4 openings the King Indian Defense or main line of the Semi-Slav Defense, Botvinnik Variation.
And 1.e4 systems: Bishop Opening, where no matter how your opponent play you play d3,Nc3,Nge2,0-0, and f4. 4 or 3 Knights system, Philidor Defense with Reverse colors, i.e White plays e4,d3,Nf3,c3,Nbd2 and Be2 or g3-Bg2
@jonesmh Nope, only sometimes, you are one of them I think, but this is not the case. A simple sharp game is simply a game where the contact between pieces is high and you must to calculate and be aware of blows and counter blows on the board, usually it conduces to unbalanced positions, where one side gets material (for example) for initiative or active piece play, or simply a better position, good diagonals, better pawn strcture, etc.
The IQP positions that could arise in the Queens Gambit Acepted could be sharp depending of how white play.
neither e4 nor d4 are only attacking chess or positional manouvering
it's all up to the player
for example dubov mainly plays the english or d4 and he is ofc only known for his positional manouvering, right? right.
on the other hand anish giri is a e4 player
AlphaZero saw no advantage after 1.e4, it went 1.d4. Just sayin‘.
After e4, black has many replies fundamentally imo
A replies: Simmetry, e4 e5
B replies:Confrontation e4 d5, e4 c6 ...d5 e4 e6...d5
C replies: Negation, c5
Extra: (These are less important)
D replies: Attack,, e4 Nf6
etc
B replies are Scandinavian, french defence and Caro kann
The C reply its the hardest to understand since black move
c5 the sicilian, its a move of a diagonal pawn.
Pawns do a lot of things in chess, they blockade, they push,
they win space, they attack, they threat or get exchanged
c5 is a move not about controlling the c5 square, Its
rather more to control the d4 square, hence the difficulty.
Simple chess has harmony you advance the pawn
and develop and weird or sidestep concepts are hard
to master like attacking from the distance or the side
Sicilian has the antisicilians, it has the mainline (d4)
It has the alapin etc
Also by playing e5 (after e4 as black) you also controll
the d5 square.
A clue e5 diagonals are d4 and f4,
c5 diagonals are b4 and d4
but chess its not that simple and the knight on f3 is very common,
However black has at least 3 strong responses,
the philidor, the petroff defence
and what I think its the mainline Nc6,
(many times It continues into the Ruy, the ruy lopez game).
Perhaps there advanced concepts tactically
Example Its very rare that in the e4 e5 games black
will continue later with e5 c5 structure
however I think this can happen with reverse order, the sicilian
sometimes to have c5 and e5.
Im not sure if this is a silly comment, such structure
has the potential or strength of attacking twice the d4
square but as most things in chess
Everything is a plus and a minus (not to confuse
with black and white)
What do I mean by a plus and a minus,
in this case I mean the weakness of the d5 square,
It is an outpost for white but Im tired.
I forgot to say that this is because of the concept
of knight c6, (e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6...)here black can not
advance the pawn, perhaps from this original idea
or a similiar one someone played c5.
After c5 you can play Nc6, but as I said in the beginning this is very advanced and difficult,
I personally do not like the e5 c5 structure.
Last comment, What are the statistics of the sicilian dragon?
If black is not gonna play e5 and instead plays e6
I like the bishop on g7.
I do not know theory now but if the c5 pawn is not removed
black is a little cramped.
I prefer strong moves like bishop c5 instead of bishope7
if its possible (despite it can be attacked in the e4 e5 games
with moves like c3 and d4)
There is no sicilian, there are the sicilians in plural
but in my opinion as a weak player, Sicilian is such
a confusion to handle both bishops diagonals and pawns
structures, I think thats why its played
because it takes some deep thoughts to figure that out,
to confuse the white player.
If the best thing in the Sicilian dragon,
Its queenside castling and the yugoslav attack,
perhaps Its a still a good option for black.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.