Actually, I switched (way way back when) from 1 e4 to 1 c4. Much happier getting away from all that memorization (it was like you had to have a whole book stored up for every possible Black response...and even then they'd play something weird, like the Fiesta variation, and find a way to topple your applecart).
Intresting. And what does a 1.c4 player play as black to avoid theory if I may ask out of curiosity? And which is more theory heavy, 1.d4 or 1.e4?
A similar question: how does one go about switching from e4 to d4 (or c4)? I'm debating doing so, but I don't know if I can efficiently absorb and implement all the opening theory necessary.
A similar question: how does one go about switching from e4 to d4 (or c4)? I'm debating doing so, but I don't know if I can efficiently absorb and implement all the opening theory necessary.
I tried to be consistent, ie not playing totally different openings like for example a combo of KID as black vs d4 and caro-kann against e4 for example. One is a hyper modern opening and the other isn't. So I kept to classical by playing 1.d4 then c4 as white and responding to 1.d4 with 1. d5 (2. c4 c6). So queens gambit (as white)+ slav (as black) and imo to complement that caro-kann goes well as a response to 1.e4 because of pawn structure and similar handling of the queens bishop. I'm pretty satisfied now with my repetoire which I wasn't back when I played 1.e4. It was so hard to find consistency in it imo.
which is more theory heavy, 1.d4 or 1.e4?
From my copy of MCO14:
1 e4=380 pages
1 d4=260 pages
1 c4=40 pages
Ah very intresting thx for the info.
I've remained loyal to my e4 choice ever since I took chess seriously. it's a common thing (and a popular school of thought) that in clubs they feed a lot of e4 e5 trainings to beginners to strengthen their tactics. and that's what has happened to me...to this moment I'm not thinking of changing to d4 or anything else. well, as black I play open lines against all of e4, d4 and c4. maybe your feeling with caro-kann and slav as black is the reason behind that.
I should add that although I've faced some fearful responses to my e4 lines, I've tried to come up with open solutions to them, not by completely changing to a whole different opening. an example to this goes: against french, after some failures with 3.Nc3 I reverted to Tarrasch variation, 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 
and lived happily ever after!
but recently ive been doing the exchange french just because I like it more...I know that sounds crazy...
Yep. Black has equality after move three.
The main reason I made the switch was because I wanted to work on my positional and strategic play. Also the endgame.
At first I intended to use it only temporarily until I went over 2000 USCF, but now that I'm finally over I actually kinda like it.
Maybe I'll start playing both e4 and d4 again. (Bring on the memorization!)
I had a similar experience as I moved to d4 as I moved up to Expert and Master. I think the advantage of d4 is it's more solid and I could spend more time studying middlegames rather than openings. In my humble opinion it's more a matter of your style and taste for which one to play.
I made the move from e4 to d4 recently and I can't really say why I feel more comfortable with it. I have never really touched a theory book and just started playing chess last year (i knew the piece's moves, but besides that I didn't even know that there are established sequences of opening moves each with a fancy name), but e4 openings seem to lead to a too loose middle game, pieces don't seem to be coordinating so well and there is too much free space on the board. With d4 everything feels neat and tight, games develop slower but steadier and it seems like you can have a better grasp on what your opponent's next move will be.
I also developed a feeling that being a d4 player as white, it follows that I have to respond e4 players with the Sicilian Defense when playing as black. Does this make any sense?
It seemed to me that 1 d4 is not only good for positional games, but it stops black from playing too dynamically, without making concessions. The dutch is somewhat dynamic, but the drawback of creating weaknesses is undeniable, so I'm happy to slowly take advantage of them. Also white almost always gets a solid space edge, with pawns on c4 and d4, and again I like to slowly take advantage of them. For some reason, I just love the positions that come out of 1 d4. I almost always have control of the position, even if it's just a small advantage.
It also definitley seems like there is less theory needed with 1 d4, probably because the positions tend to be less tactical so you can get by with ideas more often.
I recently switched (but still play both) to d4. The sicilian was far to theory heavy since every club player has "their" pet variation and I never feel quite prepared enough. d4 I feel also gives the white player the chance to "spring" there weapon after black choses their defense.
he cant possibly have equality....position is symetric and its white to move, I think its self evident that he does not have equality...try going further in the line to make that claim maybe
If you really were a master, you would know that black has equality easily. The harder part is getting winning chances as black.
he cant possibly have equality....position is symetric and its white to move, I think its self evident that he does not have equality...try going further in the line to make that claim maybe
If you really were a master, you would know that black has equality easily. The harder part is getting winning chances as black.
The only negative opinion I have ever heard from players of the French regarding the exchange variation is that it is too easy for White to draw.
he cant possibly have equality....position is symetric and its white to move, I think its self evident that he does not have equality...try going further in the line to make that claim maybe
If you really were a master, you would know that black has equality easily. The harder part is getting winning chances as black.
The only negative opinion I have ever heard from players of the French regarding the exchange variation is that it is too easy for White to draw.
lol 
ambitious black players, huh?!
At my level people always play 1...e5. I hate 1...e5! Why don't we just play checkers. Defenses named after European landmasses only please.
A similar question: how does one go about switching from e4 to d4 (or c4)? I'm debating doing so, but I don't know if I can efficiently absorb and implement all the opening theory necessary.
You have to decide upon the following in priority :
Then the rest is easy...
Tell us your story of why and when you changed you opening repetoire to 1.d4. Was it some of blacks replies to 1.e4? Was it the open positions that didn't feel well? Too many pawn structures that could arrise from it? Easier to win positionally?
I never thought I'd change but after noticing how my games were more successful when I started playing the caro-kann and slav defense as black I soon changed my white repetoire to 1.d4 to suit my new style better. I somehow have this feeling that 1.d4 supresses blacks counter-play a tiny bit more then when I opened 1.e4. Anyone else get this feeling?