Originally posted by Red NightThat's not true. There are really just as many responses to d4. Yes, d5 and Nf6 are the most popular responses, but they can yield so many openings. For example, after Nf6, I could get the KID, Benko, Nimzo, Grunfeld, Bogo, Knight's Tango and a Queen's Indian among others. For d5, I could get a Slav, Semi-Slav, QGA or QGD. Furthermore, there is also the Pirc, Modern, Benoni, Dutch, Albin and Chigorian. Clearly, Black has a wide variety of responses for both d4 and e4.
I was thinking that there are so many immediate responses to e4: e5, e6, c5, d6, nf6, d5, c6.
Responses to d4 are generally limited to d5 and Nf6. Whites 2nd and third move are almost always c4 and Nc3 or Nf3. Most of the openings with d4 tend to follow a similiar theme.
However: there is some merit to learning the game as a total beginner by playing e4.
Originally posted by exigentskyInteresting thought. Obviously there is no right answer. I think if you knew the Q Gambit, you could figure your way through the Slav, NID, QID, Tarrash, and probably even the KID.
That's not true. There are really just as many responses to d4. Yes, d5 and Nf6 are the most popular responses, but they can yield so many openings. For example, after Nf6, I could get the KID, Benko, Nimzo, Grunfeld, Bogo, Knight's Tango and a Queen's Indian among others. For d5, I could get a Slav, Semi-Slav, QGA or QGD. Furthermore, there is also the P ...[text shortened]... utch, Albin and Chigorian. Clearly, Black has a wide variety of responses for both d4 and e4.
On the other hand, you could be an absolute expert on the Ruy and have trouble with the Sicilian or the French.
As for the Pirc, bring it on, even a 150 rated player can beat it.
Final thought. I think that you should play what makes you comfortable and not whatever line scores highest on your database.
For this guy e4 is probably fine. It's what he wants to play and is probably the best way to learn the basics.
Yes, you may be right that since d4 is less tactical, ideas may be able to get you safely through more openings. However, the opening advantage would be gone.
As for the Pirc, it's not so bad. Motowndave plays the Pirc on RHP and hasn't lost a game.
Also, I do not just play the best scoring moves in the database. I carefully scrutinize the quality of the players, evaluate the sample, use many chess engines and employ my own experience before selecting a move. Of course, I will not pick an opening move I am clearly not comfortable with. For example, I am not comfortable in the Pirc, it scores quite well, but it isn't my style. I like to have an open file much earlier in the game. On the other hand, comfort really comes from experience.
I think that 1.d4 is a bad opening... it really just sucks.
1.e4 is the best opening for beginners, playing that alot will get you used to how the game works.
Other good openings are flank openings, like Nf3 for example, which aim to controll the center by indirect means yet don't compromise your pawn structure, allowing you to better choose a more appropriate pawn structure after black moves.
With 1.e4, it opens the king side, but to both players.
1.D4 can close the king side and make it harder to castle.
For someone Knight Square's level, I wouldn't advise any formal study of openings besides the opening principles. If names like KID, Ruy Lopez, King's Gambit, etc. etc. are foreign to you, then that's good, they should be.
Fight for the centre, develop your pieces, and castle your king early. Always keep an eye on your kings safety, especially on the vulnerable f2/f7 squares. Trade off pieces if they help you accomplish this or they give you more space on the board. If your opponent offers you material and you don't know why, then take it.
Don't leave pieces hanging unprotected, don't move pieces more than once, don't waste time pawn-grabbing (grabbing non-centre pawns), don't push pawns, and don't bring out your queen early. Break any or all of these rules if they lead to gains in material or checkmate.
A good opening move is d4 or e4 (or the mirror d5 or e5 as black) because they are agressive moves staking immediate claim to the centre. Other than learning from your mistakes,study old annotated classic masters game, and that's enough for opening study.
Originally posted by exigentskyI have always found 1. d4 much better suits my play style than 1. e4. Also I found it very easy to learn compared to 1. e4.
LOL!! I hope you're kidding! I find d4 much harder to play well and I'm no beginner.
You can't tell someone that their opinion that something is better for them is rubbish just because you find something different. It's not an empirical science.
Originally posted by XanthosNZXanthos, you are no beginner. The fact that you even have a style shows that.
I have always found 1. d4 much better suits my play style than 1. e4. Also I found it very easy to learn compared to 1. e4.
You can't tell someone that their opinion that something is better for them is rubbish just because you find something different. It's not an empirical science.
I've taught a few people to play chess and showed them both d4 and e4. I let them experiment, explained the opening ideas etc. and they all settled on e4. The positional ideas in the Queen's Gambit and other d4 openings were too much for them to handle. What they needed was a simple opening involving tactics and e4 gave them that. A few of them, after gaining a solid tactical foundation, went to d4 later. Honestly, I think d4 is a mistake for 75% of beginners.
I think another strong argument for learning e4 before d4 is that a lot of the classic 19th century games are e4 games, which are a great way to study as a beginner/novice.
But really, d4 is a very solid opening move, and if a beginner feels comfortable with it, there's no reason why they shouldn't play it.