Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
I just started playing d4 (Queens Gambit not that Tromp/Torre/London junk  ) in serious games and already I think it is going to require more work (opening prep wise) then e4. I didn't play the open Sicilian with white when I played e4. It just seems there are more defenses against the Queens Gambit that you have to be prepared for. Am I wrong?
|
|
|
Hmmmm... Playing 1.d4 is a totally different philosophy of life. The problem is the same as with 1.e4 and you have to consider what to play defense by defense.
1.d4 Nf6 and you have a constelation of ideas with both Black and White
2.Nf3 (To avoid the Budapest pest)
A. 2...g6
B. 2...e6
C. 2...d5
D. 2...c6
E. etc.
Each A, B, C, D, etc. has a problem...
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 and here you have another set of problems:
B1. 3...Bb4+
B2. 3...b6
B3. 3...c5
B4. 3...d5
So... Yes, it requires quite a lengthy preparation...
In the queen's gambit you have a bunch of things to consider.
- The slav
- The semi-slav
- Cambridge Springs
- Lasker
- Manhattan
- Peruvian defense
- Tarrasch
- etc.
If I ever work on those ideas I would follow Yermolinski's approach and try to work around Carlsbad's structures in order to make my opening preparation much more efficient...
|
|
|
I take it you agree with me then. 
|
|
|
Yes
|
|
|
It is a shame because I think I'm more naturally a d4 player. I am also naturally lazy.
|
|
|
1.d4 is a good way of creating a sound repertoire... I only play 1.e4
|
|
