Chess enthusiasts,

I think it's time to completely scrap my repertoire and start over. I've been playing for 10 or so years and I've always played 1. e4. When I first started to play semi-seriously I picked up this book and used it to figure out lines.



It's not a terrible book. The lines lines mostly lead to fun, open positions with lots of tactical possibilities. As I steadily improved, I began to run into problems so I'd patch certain lines or learn a little more theory or swap one opening for another. This led me to this repertoire:

1 ... e5 Max Lange, Evans Gambit
1 ... e6 2 knights or occasionally Qe2 GPA
1 ... c6 fantasy variation
1 ... c5 open Sicilians, English attack/Yugoslav setup whenever possible
1 ... d6/g6 same setup as vs sicilian
1 ... d5 Nf3 setups vs both recaptures

This served me well and took me above 2200 USCF. The problem is that this hodgepodge repertoire of slightly dubious lines just isn't going to cut it anymore. I've had to put chess on the back burner for the last 4 years but I'm eager to begin studying and playing seriously now that I have time. In order to make real progress, I need a repertoire that can actually stand up to better competition in OTB games.

So here's the question. 1. e4 or 1. d4? I've read and played through countless games and I'm still completely on the fence. So I'm going to let this forum decide. I don't care how strong you are, just vote. As a very small reward (or punishment, I suppose) I'll start a new post every couple weeks discussing the lines that I'm learning. I'll do my best to explain the very basics as well as providing more advanced principles, move order decisions, etc.

So, for instance, if 1. e4 is chosen, I would use one thread to discuss the French as a whole, my approach to it and then further divide posts into plans, ideas and specific variations vs the winawer, rubinstein, etc. Or 1. d4 I would discuss the exchange QGD, the plans for each side, move orders, and classic games.

No 1. c4 option?

That thing transposes into lots of different open and closed positions so you can be pretty flexible with it imo, also it has its own positions

e4 but don't play crazy stuff

1. c4 IMO. As Garcia said, it has a lot of transpositions so you can play it in many different ways. Also, it reduces the amount of opening study you have to do.

Then again, at your level you'll probably need to do some opening study no matter what. Regardless, 1. c4 has served me well.

Vote: 1. c4

If I have to choose then 1. e4 but play more mainstream stuff.

I'd say the way to determine it for yourself is:

Do you enjoy playing against the Sicilian?

As you will face this defense the most at your level you need to be honest with yourself and answer that question.

If the answer is yes, then play 1. e4, and if it is no then play 1. d4

Pretty much.

Recommendation to OP: learn the Spanish (a.k.a. Ruy Lopez) and play the
anti-Marshall unless you like learning even more theory. [ That seems like
the biggest theoretical gap. ]

I'd think the decision is between 1. d4 and 1. e4. They're the most logical moves and provide the greatest chances for rich play.

I prefer 1. d4 since I find the sicilian to be such an effective opening for black. I also find the french to be rather solid and I prefer black in the sharper (winawer/etc) variations! There's nothing I don't really like facing with 1. d4. Even better is around the like 2000-2300 range there seems to be a clinical obsession with the benoni, which I really do not understand. It's such a pleasant opening, for white!

It would definitely be fun to have some discussion on the main responses here.

LOL, I am the only one who voted for 1.d4 Eh.. it totally depends on your style - d4 leads to more closed/strategical positions (which doesn't really suit me as more of a tactical player, but I've played it my whole life and I have plenty of sharp lines, so not going to switch), e4 leads to more of an open play.. Which one are you?

hear hear! here here! whatever that is.. I forgot to vote!

I think even if stuff like the benoni does lead to "closed" positions, they're a whole lot more dynamic than the wildest open positions since that e5 push, in this particular example, is pretty much the whole point of the opening for white, and after it occurs **** gets wild.

Maybe the exchange QGD is a better example since that seems innocuous if you don't play it but almost every main idea besides the nitty queenside minority push just leads to wild stuff.

time for everyone to vote for whatever they play?

I know, I know. Everybody wants their favorite opening included. I just HATE 1. c4 c5 positions for white. I do enjoy 1. c4 e5 positions but the rest of the fun positions can just as easily be reached by 1. d4. At least in my area 1 ... c5 is way more popular than any other response so I'm just not pumped about this option.

I do enjoy playing both sides of the Sicilian. That's the main reason I stuck with 1. e4 for so long. The problem is that I'm getting tired of facing much lower rated players (especially kids) who are super booked on the mainline of their sicilian. It just seems really silly to me to play 20+ book moves vs an 1800 player when if I'd played a sideline, they would have made a significant mistake much earlier. I've never much enjoyed playing against the caro or french though. 1 ... e5 is meh.

This was my first inclination as I can at least use some of my previous knowledge. I'd like to eventually be able to get an FM title so I'm going to need some significant improvement and I wonder if really learning 1. d4 positions would help me to improve more.

2000 USCF player here.

I play 1. e4 and always have, but I'm kinda sick of it. I don't like learning tons of theory and it seems like Black can give White more trouble with the Sicilian or the French than he can with, say, the Queen's Indian Defense, the Nimzo-Indian Defense, or even the KID. When I was a weaker player I thought that 1. d4 was for pansies who were afraid of tactics so I didn't want to play it, but then I read Mikhail Tal's "My Life and Games" and somewhere in it he basically says that 1. d4 is more aggressive than 1. e4, so that changed my whole opinion.

Actually, switching to 1. d4 would probably dramatically improve my results with Black, because I'm good against 1. e4 with the Dragon but I switch from defense to to defense against 1. d4 without rhyme or reason. If I played 1. d4 myself I would just switch to the defense that gives me the most trouble!

So here's a 1. e4 player recommending 1. d4.

I voted e4 because that's what I've always played. However, you should make the choice yourself and not follow the results of the poll.

e4 and d4 are equal. The best players don't play just one. They play both. If you play against regular opponents and you know their primary defenses against both e4 and d4, you can choose your first move strategically (avoid the Najdorf and play against the Benoni; or avoid the Nimzo-Indian and play against the Alekhine).

I don't like that you don't play the Ruy Lopez against 1...e5. That was the opening I scored best with as an e4 player.



The Marshall Attack is nothing to fear. Avoiding it will lead to a weaker position for White.

Excellent points. I really wish I had learned to play the Ruy from the beginning. Repairing second rate openings is such a pain in the ass.

I rarely play the Ruy Lopez and usually play the Scotch. I don't think this is any less theoretically respectable unless you are like 2500+ and I do play the Ruy Lopez often enough as Black, I don't think it's so terrible that you "miss out" on playing it.

Ditto. I started playing the Smith-Morra and now I'm too good with it to bother with all the Najdorf theory, even though the Morra isn't really viable above 2300 or so USCF.

The player with the White pieces doesn't need to "bother with all the Najdorf theory". He just needs one system dependent on his sixth move- Be2, Be3, Bc4, Bg5, or f4 (obviously, there are other less common 6th move options such as g3).

Granted, you will need other open Sicilian knowledge such as facing the Dragon, Sveshnikov, etc.


Against lower rated opponents, the Smith-Morra seems like a gimmicky way to beat somebody in the opening if they don't know the theory. Against a more skilled opponent (or just one who knows the Smith-Morra from Black's perspective), it seems like it's just giving away White's natural advantage.

There's also the bail out that Black can do and White transposes into 2. c3

The morra is not that bad. I even have a victory over a GM with it! But I think it's main benefit is just 'unbooking' black.

wat?

There's about a zillion lines in the Marshall that lead to a forced draw with white being the one forced to dodge a hundred bullets on the way to it!

Kasparov, along with countless other GMs, find it wise to avoid it.

The Morra isn't a gimmick. White gets real positional compensation for the pawn. I know that engines shouldn't be trusted to accurately evaluate early middlegame positions, but most engines actually give White a (small) advantage after the gambit is accepted.

One of the main points of the Morra is that it is fiendishly difficult for Black to develop his queen properly. Often it ends up on b8! Black doesn't have to fall into some Bxf7+ trap to have problems.

Can you show me a few of these lines in which White is required to force a draw?

This database has just 781 games, but White scores a reasonable 53.4%. Black is winning less than 1/4 of the games.

I'm sorry but if you generally believe this you know absolutely nothing about the current state of ruy lopez theory. Anti-Marshalls are very popular at the top level and certainly do NOT give white a "weaker position"; white plays for a normal opening advantage.

To clarify, I meant weaker than if White allowed the Marshall. I did not mean White's position is inferior to Black's position in anti-Marshall lines.