Unfortunately there are many unskilled d4 players using the London system to "play safely", they kind of give d4 the bad name. The exchange variation of Slav defense is also very, very drawish. If you want to play aggressively against d4, I suggest Benoni defense and Benko gambit, they are uncommon but not too rare.
e4: 33 % white wins, 42 % draws, 25 % black wins
d4: 34 % white wins, 43 % draws, 23 % black wins
c4: 34 % white wins, 43 % draws, 23 % black wins
So I wouldn't say that d4 is more drawish.
@Meriten
43 > 42
25 > 23
There is a chapter in the mighty „Game Changer“ that an evaluation 0.00 doesn’t mean „drawish“ in a common sense. It can be hypersharp ending in equality by one forced line. So it is better to use „winning probability“ or something like that.
@OSpengler I agree on the London. I'm not a fan of it myself. I find it to be too cramped.
@Meriten I've seen those stats. I wonder if they might be more useful if only analyzing games involving two players of certain requisite strength. I'm not terribly convinced that they speak to the merits of the opening per se.
To complete my previous first post in this thread,
an overview analysis of e4 games, where I thought
the ABC system, I want to add to that system of thought
that the structure d4 e5, pawns on d4 and e5
is paramount to understand your scope of chess,
(this is a continuation of the B system)
Black usually has the pawns on d5 and e6, example
the advanced french.
I can not make a correct evaluation now to
know the pros and contras of that structure,
if it is more positive than negative.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.