Why was 1.e4 so popular at the recent candidates tournament?

Does someone have an Idea why 1.e4 was clearly prefered over other decent first moves like 1.d4, 1.c4 and 1.nf3 at the recent candidates tournament?

If i remember correctly only Abasov played 1.d4 in a regular fashion.

1 e4 'best by test' - Fischer
Modern engines concur and hence that is what the best players play in an important tournament.

During the stream of the last round of this candidates I did remember Magnus showed up to provide guest commentary and touched upon this subject. It was roughly 1 hour and 10 minutes into the stream and lasted about 5 minutes.

Well, Nepo almost always plays 1.e4 so no surprise there ...

It might be interesting to note that in the final round, when Hikaru was in his "must win" game against Gukesh, he chose 1.d4.

Fabiano also had a "must win" situation against Nepo, and he also chose 1.d4 ...

So it's noteworthy, perhaps, that some of today's top players believe 1.d4 offers a better fighting chance than 1.e4 ...

You're overlooking a crucial detail @MaetsNori

Nakamura said in his recap of the final round, that he picked 1. d4 in order to surprise Gukesh a bit, since he only played 1. e4 in the previous rounds. I'd assume Caruana had a very similar thought process before his game against Nepo (also, trying to beat Nepo in the Petroff can't be a fun task).

So I think it's wrong to conclude that Nakamura and Caruana believe that 1. d4 objectively offers better fighting chances. If that would be the case they would've prepared it as their main weapon.

Hmm ... That's a fair conclusion.

I was leaning more toward the assumption that Black has so many ways to force the game toward drawing lines, after 1.e4 ...e5, for example. (So it would make sense for White to avoid 1.e4 because of that, in a must-win game.)

But you make a good point about d4 being chosen more for shock value.

I think it's starting to become pretty established that 1. e4 is better for winning chances.

The history of e4 vs d4 is quite interesting in that historically basically everyone played e4 and there was little theory on d4. Then d4 peaked around the start of the 20th century with Alekhine vs Capablanca where nearly every game of that match started with d4, with very few wins, nearly all draws so the chess world turned to e4 again to look for winning chances.

In the 2000s e4 was dealt massive blows with the emergence of the Berlin Wall and Petrov as not just very solid but a pain to play against, and for a while it looked like d4 might make a way back to the top, and in some ways it has. Noone can be too "surprised" at d4.

However in the final analysis, and I believe it's going to stay this way, e4 is still the best try objectively for trying to get a win. d4 just allows too much safety for black. Top players now have a extremely in-depth knowledge of cracking the Berlin Wall and Petrov unlike when Kramnik and others first started playing them at the top level, and in super gm vs super gm with both informed on the openings they are easier to crack than d4.

Of course d4 still offers great chances and can be used for surprise value. Remember also that though this was must-win for Nakamura, the inverse, ie. that Gukesh only wanted a draw, was not true. Gukesh could well have gone for glory and avoid a tiebreaker if he hadn't opted to swap queens and play for a draw and that is what Nakamura was hoping for. As it happens he didn't try for a win and he also didn't need a win.

"I think it's starting to become pretty established that 1. e4 is better for winning chances."

I can't agree. The Fashion in oenings is ever changing. One players has a few new ideas, and everything changes

With d4 (and c4 and nf3) it's considerably easier to equalize as black, and at the highest level you want to try and win with white, not draw. After d4, your opponent can reply with 1.nf6 followed by 2.e6. If you go 3.nf3, they reply with d5 and you often go into drawing positions such as the one below.

Hi
I need some help
I want to download my stats like a dataset. I dont know weather it is possible. if there is any way dm me plzz

Don't underestimate the influence of fashion.

Chess Grandmasters are as fashion-conscious as teenage girls.

@9

"d4 peaked around the start of the 20th century with Alekhine vs Capablanca where nearly every game of that match started with d4, with very few wins, nearly all draws"
++ '1 d4 dull & drawish' - Fischer
'I never opened 1 d4, on principle' - Fischer

and both games were draws

True.

Though, Fabi reached a +8 advantage at one point. Completely crushing. His 1.d4 opening choice actually paid off - Ian didn't want a draw so he chose to go into an ...h6, ...g5 line that he didn't know too well.

Ian even said in the post-game interview that the opening started his problems. "I wanted to play this line for a win ... but I quickly mixed up all (the) ideas. I mean, that happens when you play (an) opening you're not familiar with."

But Fabi blundered it all away ...

If that is what you think about that match .... You totally missed the mark!

Like Lasker ...Capablanca demand the challenger acquire the purse. The London agreement as it was called. Which was a sum bordering on ridiculous. ( i.e The main reason why Lasker's reign was so long)

Alekhine on coming close with 80% of the purse was denied. (On the second time, a total of 5 yrs to do... he succeeded in getting the backing funds )

At that time .. Alekhine had a loosing record against Capablanca. Obviously he believed he had a shot because he chased Capablanca for a match. Capablanca in turn was probably thinking ... OK, I'll take your money.

The match starts, Game 1: Capablanca plays 1.e4 and looses to Alekhine's French defense.

GAME 2: Alekhine played 1.d4, Capablanca plays a Queen's Gambit, it's a draw.

Game 3: Capablanca plays1.d4, Alekhine plays a QID and looses.

Then... 31 Queens Gambits in a row! ??? WHAT???

There had to be some form of agreement of playing the Queen's Gambits. 1.e4 was as popular then as today (maybe even more popular)

WHY?

The only thing that makes sense is one of them boasted to the other after Game 3, that they thought they were the better chess player... & the other said "prove it!" We play the same opening, so no opening tricks... & both agreed... both thinking they were able to outplay each other from known positions. Once the fight was on..... To break from the QGD was to admit your opponent you were not the  best chess player.

What other rational explains nothing but the same opening for the rest of the match? ???

IMO.... That match got personnel in a huge way!

It became an attempt to break the others will... to crush the opponents ego!

Disaster happened for Capablance & Alekhine won the match... and proved he was the better chess player during that match

then Karma comes back an slaps Capablanca in the face... Alekhine then gives the same stipulation.... i.e. The London rules to Capablanca. Now he must acquire the purse/funds etc for a rematch ...

the irony ... Capablanca couldn't raise the funds he demanded of his challengers and then wanted to throw out the London rules .

Alekhine said Hell no! He was probably thinking... "It took me five years to find enough donors to get the backing ... I'll see you if 5 yrs Capablanca.

To bad... Capablanca never could raise the funds... so there never was a re-match.

Both despised each other for the rest of their lives!

People cite that match as the most boring WC match to date... Not to me...

@17

"The match starts, Game 1: Capablanca plays 1.e4 and looses to Alekhine's French defense."
++ Capablanca planned to open 1 e4 and because of this loss had to shift to 1 d4.

"Game 3: Capablanca plays1.d4, Alekhine plays a QID and looses."
++ This reinforces Capablanca to open 1 d4, and causes Alékhine to switch to the Queen's Gambit Declined, which he had prepared too.

"Then... 31 Queens Gambits in a row!" ++ Logical consequence of games 1 & 3.

"1.e4 was as popular then as today"
++ Yes, but Capablanca stayed away from 1 e4 after game 1 and Alékhine had prepared 1 d4.

"they thought they were the better chess player" ++ Capablanca thought so before, during, and after the match. Alékhine was the better prepared player, Capablanca did not prepare at all.

"We play the same opening"
++ No, they played different variations of the Queen's Gambit Declined.

"both thinking they were able to outplay each other from known positions"
++ Capablanca trusted his superior ability, Alékhine trusted his superior preparation.

"Disaster happened for Capablance & Alekhine won the match"
++ Capablanca suffered some unnecessary losses.

"proved he was the better chess player during that match"
++ If you analyse the games, Capablanca was the better chess player, but he was careless.

Still analyzing that match.

IMO it's hard to say that the better chess player lost in a 34 game match in which he was defeated by a score 3 wins-6 losses with 25 draws. At one point in the match, Capablanca had to go 22 games without a win and suffered 3 loss and 18 draws in doing so.

People who've been here a while have learned to generally ignore that guy and the outrageous things he casually claims as if they were fact. Maybe some fraction of what he said is accurate, whatever the case it's not worth arguing with him.