05 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by greenpawn34Wondering, GP, in what situations you might first
I always play 1.e4 because it gives my King a flight square (e2) of a different colour.
1.d4 and the flight square (d2) is the same colour as e1.
That's how deep I look into my games. On move one I'm thinking of
flight squares for my King. 🙂
develop a few pieces with an eye toward castling.
06 Dec 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBlack lives and plays by whites mistakes.
the problem with 1.f4 is that there is no way to guarantee that you shall be able to get in e4 and have two adjacent pawns in the centre, black will easily get in ...d5 and ...c5
White can do the same, but has a little bit more time to spare.
06 Dec 10
Originally posted by Maxacre42I'd say white immediately gets the advantage in tempo. But yeah I hate playing against the symmetrical too.
I hate it when I open c4 and the opponent c5! The symmetrical is just impossible to get an advantage against!
Most of the time I play 1.e4 because I like open games with a fight for the initiative, but I have been known to play c4 too. I first started playing d4 because I lasted longer against the comp with it, but I haven't played it in over a year.
Here is an English game of mine. I started out wanting to play the Karpov variation, but I had a lot of games going at the time and I literally forgot what opening I started out with.
I ended up throwing any positional considerations to the wind and saccing a knight for an attack.
07 Dec 10
Originally posted by ChessPraxisOffhand, I would say it is because it is too much to study. I'm not sure that's really true (many of those possibilities are inferior), but it's a plausible thought, I believe.
Please elaborate. Why would the most next move choices be undesirable?
Of course, it begs the question a bit, since having the most move choices is neither positive or negative.
If you have only one move, but it is the best move, compared to having a large number of inferior moves from which to chose, I'd prefer to have the one move. The sheer quantity of moves has no intrinsic value in the absence of a way to evaluate them.
It is the quality of each move that matters, and we can only play one move at a time.
07 Dec 10
Originally posted by Paul LeggettActually mobility IS an advantage in and of itself. If the opponents pieces become restricted then you will control the game.
Offhand, I would say it is because it is too much to study. I'm not sure that's really true (many of those possibilities are inferior), but it's a plausible thought, I believe.
Of course, it begs the question a bit, since having the most move choices is neither positive or negative.
If you have only one move, but it is the best move, compared to ...[text shortened]... em.
It is the quality of each move that matters, and we can only play one move at a time.
07 Dec 10
mobility is an advantage, but with the clock ticking, too many similar choices can be a burden.
On a sidenote, we talk about the advantage of the first move, but most players I know do better with black than with white, suggesting that information and repertoire are more important than the first move at the sub master level.
07 Dec 10
Originally posted by Paul LeggettThanks Paul
Offhand, I would say it is because it is too much to study. I'm not sure that's really true (many of those possibilities are inferior), but it's a plausible thought, I believe.
Of course, it begs the question a bit, since having the most move choices is neither positive or negative.
If you have only one move, but it is the best move, compared to ...[text shortened]... em.
It is the quality of each move that matters, and we can only play one move at a time.