Yes but name an open d4 opening (other than the Gruenfeld). Also, it is possible to play ANY chess opening in a positional manner (other than a gambit). Both e4 and d4 openings can be open or closed, positional or tactical, but it is much easier to play open, tactical openings in 1.e4.
For beginners, 1.d4 is just as good as 1.e4. Prove me wrong.
Sort:
12 hrs ago
0
#4
Vladimir Kramnik recommends e4 to beginners.. His reasoning? It leads to a wider variety of pawn structures, and is more tactical... and that's how the Russian chess school taught him.
So he's a world champion... and the russian chess school produced some of the greatest players in history. Shouldn't the onus be on you to prove him wrong, rather than the reverse? Anyway... skimming through your post I'll make a few small points (it's too long to read in its entirety)
1) the goal of recommending a beginner an opening isn't really to get them wins, it's mainly to teach them the game.
2) there's no way of knowing how a random person will feel about an opening when you recommend them one, and we're talking about general recommendations here, so this just wouldn't effect my recommendation... however, if you hate 1. e4 you probably are going to hate chess and should probably just quit while you're ahead
3) e4 (especially e4e5, played in most games at low level) leads to open and tactical games significantly more often than d4, not slightly
4) e4 is not usually played on move 4-5 after 1. d4, it usually comes around move 8-9
5) Your argument is incoherent... it begins by claiming both e4 and d4 lead to open / tactical games with comparable frequency... but then it goes on to describe how d4 often leads to positional games, and how this is preferrable.
There's nothing forcing white to play the ruy lopez, some people argue the italian or scotch are better for beginners... but regardless, even in the Ruy Lopez main line (one line out of a thousand after e4) one slight inaccuracy and the position breaks down into tactical continuations. In d4 openings often a player will secure a positional advantage and over time convert that to a win... e4 and d4 do not play the same way. They just simply don't.
____________
In your argument you go down many rabbit holes... you question whether the line will usually develop knights before bishops, or whether the king castles a move earlier, or whether both d4 and e4 get played, blahdi blah blah.... none of this is necessary, the matter is actually quite simple: before you learn positional chess you should learn basic concepts like tactics, central control, and piece development. This is because you can't understand a position without understanding its underlying tactics / the other basics. Hence... you should start with e4. Not difficult!
Everyone says that beginners should play 1.e4 because it's open and tactical, but in reality it's only slightly more likely to become open and tactical than 1.d4, the difference is not big enough to warrant putting that much importance on this one single factor. The French is closed. The Caro-Kann is positional. The Spanish is both closed and positional, as is the mainline of the Italian, which is literally called the Giuoco Pianissimo, which means the very quiet game. 1.e4 e5 is called the "Open Game", but in my opinion that's a misnomer.
Proponents of 1.e4 say that beginners must fight for the center and try to occupy it with Pawns. I agree. But you can do that with 1.d4 too. You play 1.d4 2.c4 3.Nc3, and then 4.e4 if your opponent allows it, else e3 and maybe later you will be able to play e3-e4.
An advantage of 1.e4 over 1.d4 is that if you play 1.e4 you often get to play d4 on move 2, while if you play 1.d4 you generally get to play e4 only on move 4 or 5. This I agree with.
People say that White gets Pawns on e4 and d4 more frequently when he starts with 1.e4 than when he starts with 1.d4. This I disagree with.
Against 1.e4, 63% of the time beginners play 1...e5. In the mainline of the Spanish, you will only be able to play d4 on move 10. In the mainline of the Italian, it will take even longer, if it ever happens. After 1.d4 2.c4, beginners allow White to play e4 more frequently than strong players do. For example, after 1.d4 d5 2.c4, 18% of the time beginners play 2...Nf6, which allows 3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.e4.
In 1.e4, when you will play d4 Black will immediately liquidate the center by playing ...cxd4 or ...exd4, so you will only have two Pawns in the center for a very brief instant. If you play 1.d4 2.c4 3.Nc3 4.e4, you will be able to keep your Pawn center for a long time, you will be able to maintain your Pawn center as a long-term positional feature.
1.d4 allows you to choose between playing a system (by playing 2.Nf3 followed by anything other than 3.c4) or playing classical principled chess and fighting for center (by playing 2.c4 or 2.Nf3 3.c4).
1.d4 2.c4 and 1.d4 2.Nf3 3.c4 faithfully follow the principle "develop Knights before Bishops", as White almost always plays Nc3 and Nf3 before developing any other piece. 1.e4 follows this principle less faithfully, as the Four Knights is a second-rate opening (after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6, GMs play 3.Nc3 only 5.8% of the time).
People say that 1.e4 allows you to castle Kingside sooner than 1.d4. Okay. But White castles Kingside more frequently in 1.d4 than in 1.e4.
People say that a player must develop like the history of chess developed. What evidence is there to back up this psycho-historicist theory? None. Nada. Zilch. What is asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. If this theory was true, then beginners shouldn't start with classical sound openings like the Italian and the Spanish, no, they should first start with unsound romantic gambits. If this theory was true, then once you reach a certain level, you would have to switch to 1.c4 and 1.Nf3. If this theory was true, then you would need to completely abandon your repertoire and create a new one even if you are perfectly happy with your current repertoire. You are not prepared to do that, you are not prepared to follow the logical consequences of this theory, so you must reject this theory.
Beginners play 1.e4 67% of the time, but 1.d4 only 20% of the time. Their opponents will be much better prepared for 1.e4 than for 1.d4. 1.d4 will have surprise value.
I'm not saying that for beginners 1.d4 is better than 1.e4. I'm saying that these two moves are about equally good, and so the old adage that beginners must play 1.e4 is wrong. Each of these two moves has advantages and disadvantages over the other.
People are assuming a one-size-fits-all answer. People are assuming that there is one single opening move that is objectively better than all the other moves for ALL beginners.
People are assuming that maximizing long-term improvement is all that matters. People are so focused on maximizing long-term improvement that they neglect all other goals. The most important question when choosing your openings is not "what are the openings that maximize long-term improvement?" but "what openings do you enjoy playing?" and "which openings best fit your own personal preferences?". If you adopt openings that you hate playing, you will end up quitting chess, and so you won't improve, even if these openings are supposedly the ones that maximize long-term improvement.