"1.e4, or 1.d4: that is the question."

Recontextualizing Hamlet's soliloquy "To be, or not to be: that is the question:" to a chess drama to express a chess player's soliloquy about the opening choice, one can arrive at "1.e4, or 1.d4: that is the question." This is an esoteric investigation of playing styles, reflecting the chess player's universal dilemma of being alive with the pain of not finding an intended breakthrough vs. deep suffering that can accompany a perceived dull play in the realm of the game. It captures a player's internal struggle and his contemplation about the playing styles, which resonate with players centuries after those first moves were discovered. 

Allow me to demystify it for you: Tabling the two of the four main first move openings from White side for the debate, 1.e4 generally leads to 'open' play and 1.d4 generally leads to 'closed' play. An open play is characterized by an opened centre plus an immediate feel for the space and a closed play by a closed centre plus astute maneuvering is called for before the space can be felt. This means that in open games, heavy pieces get a chance to twist their arms quickly compared to the closed games as in the former, immediate space translates to immediate potential attack. It's not only easy to understand and get a feel of tempo and initiative in the former which is vital in a player's inception, but one also gets to dirty his hands on a plethora of open and fluid positions shaping one to tackle different natured positions, thus helping in forming a sound chess intuition! While, in the latter case, flexibility is in the high order as one can arrive at the Queen's pawn openings with a variety of move orders starting with 1.c4 or 1.Nf3 amusing the initiator as the responder is prone to get perplexed. If the opponent is not thorough with multitude of lines or is amnesiac, a tricky Queen's pawn opener can hoodwink his petrified counter part and reach his desired positions while bypassing a particular defence that the latter intended. Nevertheless, this high order elasticity comes with its flip side though, where White needs to commit mounting his horse on f3 robbing himself of opportunities to go for sharp attacking structures, for instance, Sämisch variation of King's Indian. 

Relatively, in open games, the attacking plan is straight forward unlike in closed games where a lot of regrouping and maneuvering of pieces is needed to position your resources optimally while simultaneously tackling opponent's optimal defence positioning before you can call the extreme measures. Alexei Shirov, the 'Fire on the board' himself sent the following remark about 1.d4 which should find its place in Chess Satires - "quite a popular weapon against the Petroff, Marshall and so on." 

Nonetheless, in open games, there is a chance of pieces coming off quickly for the trade, simplifying matters in which case the fire may be put off or much worse, the fire may not even be ignited. Then, what is the incentive to play 1.e4 at the top level? The answer is, it does serve well when employed against the bellicose intent opponents who don't like to hoover the pieces off the board from the get go. 

Sometimes, in closed games, the attack is such a slow burn that it's not even palpable. Unlike in open games, here the King-side development of pieces is still in its nascent stage and thus the attack should wait, in turn resulting in less forcing positions. This means, 1.d4 player enjoys more limberness while keeping peace at bay since his adversaries find it tough to dry up his opening preparation. Thus creative opportunities gently bubble along throughout the game.  

For the afore mentioned reasons, no wonder, the cliched phrases 'Attacking chess' and 'Positional chess' are mistaken to be one that of with 'All attack' and 'No attack' respectively, while in reality, those two phrases should translate to 'Basic aggression' and 'Sophisticated aggression' respectively. Naturally, getting yourself well acquainted with the former should be the first choice both in knowledge and skill. Only later, should you graduate to learn the tricks and trades of the latter. Otherwise, it's akin to thinking of constructing a strong building without a sound foundation. 

How about mastery of such aggressions? Can you master the basic aggression fully before proceeding to the sophisticated one? Note that the linear thinking sits well in terms of acquaintance, but not in terms of complete mastery. Simply because, the game with its infinite possibilities is unsolvable, then where is the capacity to master which can’t be solved? But, the good news is one can become very good in the former first and then simultaneously with those skills, one may start to tackle the latter and in the final phase, divide one's time and energy to both aggressions simultaneously which will take one to the road of becoming a complete opening player! 

-- Aruna

   10-08-2024