E4 openings. Are they Good or Bad ? Do you think you should teach your students E4 openings or should you not ? Do you think all chess players should be taught E4 openings ?
I want to here you response ?
It’s probably the most common first move in a chess game, leading generally to open games. Writers and teachers will usually say that open games are recommended for beginning players, because they are exciting and give practice in tactics and combinations. But grandmasters and world champions also play it. Therefore I would say yes and recommend that you teach these openings.
Terrible opening. Teach the kids 1c4 or maybe 1g4 for variety. 
An analogous question in baseball would be: “Fastball. Good or bad? Should we teach pitch this to our pitchers?”
LOL. I get your point, but I can’t imagine treating 1c4 and 1g4 with the same brush/ breath/ degree of satire! I suspect the first one is 1000x as common as the second, at serious levels of play.
But neither has nearly the credibility and popularity as 1e4, certainly.
I agree, which is why I suggested 1g4 for variety–in the hope that Sam would join our discussion. 
It’s still the most popular piece to move in an opening. Of course it should be taught.
Now, what one teaches about it - it should be played or it shouldn’t when one is playing white - is a different story on principle. But let’s say one is in favor of e4, and prefers teaching it over d4 (or the teacher doesn’t like d4 for whatever reason.) Does that mean the teacher shouldn’t teach how to react to d4 when the opponent plays it? 
While instruction time is valuable, I’d find it valuable to be taught (briefly) what to do and how to evaluate when the opponent plays something actually weird. Or just out of one’s book. But that’s me.
I tried to kill this question with a dead straight answer. I can see it didn’t work. 
I’m not really in favor of teaching people how to deal with offbeat responses. There are endless possible offbeat responses, and the goal should be to train them in general good play so that when they see something offbeat they can evaluate its pluses and minuses and, if it’s mostly minuses, figure out how to kill it.
Fischer’s favorite opening was 1. e4
I’m not sure, but I think he only played a handful of 1. d4 games in his professional career. Although he might have played 1. d4 more often in skittles and/or simuls.
That reminds me of classic Chess Life and Review cover from the 70s. A caricature of Spassky with a pile of books on various e4 openings with his second saying “But Boris, what if he doesn’t play P-K4?”
Ironically, during that match against Spassky, Fischer actually played a first move other than P-K4 for what I believe was the first, last, and only time in his career.
And won in such a good style that Spassky applauded after resigning.
Yes he did, and that cover came out before the match, so it ended being prophetic.
Not quite, Fischer played 1. P-QN3 (b3) against Tukmakov (Buenos Aires), Filip (Interzonal), and Mecking (Interzonal) and 1. P-QB4 (c4) aginst Polguaevsky (Interzonal) all in 1970, two years before his match with Spassky. Only Polguaevsky managed to draw against him.
In his candidates matches against Taimanov, Larsen, and Petrosian, he returned to 1. P-K4 (e4) but in his world championship match with Spassky, he played 1. c4 four times out of his nine white games, scoring two wins and two draws.
In their 1992 rematch, he played 1. c4 one more time and scored a draw.
I’m pretty sure he didn’t deviate from 1.e4 before 1970, but I’m not totally positive, so there might be more.
Although 1.e4 was obviously his favorite move, he scored well with his ‘surprise’ moves 1. b3 (+3) and 1.c4 (+2, =4) but in 1970-1972, Fischer’s talent was so great that he probably could have won with any reasonable first move.
And although he played Black in his famous “Game of the Century” win over Donald Byrne in 1956 (at 13 years old), the game started with Knight moves, transitioning to a QGD/Gruenfeld, with Fischer not moving his central pawns until his 5. …d5. So he was comfortable playing a wide range of openings even at that age.
Did Fischer ever play 1. e4, e5 or 1. d4, d5 as Black? I think he usually played 1. e4, c5 and 1. d4, Nf6 and if 2. c4, g6, 3. Nc3 he played either the Gruenfeld or the King’s Indian.
Even against the English he didn’t play 1. c4, e5. He played 1. c4, Nf6 trying to transpose back to queen pawn openings.
So as Black he didn’t start by moving center pawns.
I took a look at Fischer’s games post-1956, the first time he plays 1.e4 e5 was at the Lepizig Olympics (1960) where he played against Unzicker and Zerquera (both draws). There’s a famous King’s Gambit game between Spassky and Fischer at Mar Del Plata in 1960 (Spassky won). He also played Gilgoric at Buenos Aires (also in 1960) with 1.e4 e5, (also a draw) and Tal in the 1962 Candidates (draw). In his 11-0 run at the 1963 US Championships, he played Mednis and Addison and won both.
Fischer first played 1.d4 d5 against Reshevsky in their 1961 match (Reshevesky won), then against Stein in the 1962 Interzonal (draw), Filip and Keres in the 1962 Candidates (both draws). In his 1992 rematch with Spassky, he played it four times, (three draws and a loss.)
Fischer first played Alekhine’s Defense 1.e4 Nf6 at the 1965 Capablanca Memorial against Ciocaltea (draw),against Minic, Ujtumen, and Suttles at the 1970 Interzonal (all wins), and aginst Spassky twice in their 1972 World Championship match (one win and one draw). He also played 1.e4 d6 once against Spassky in the 1972 match (draw).
1957-1992 Fischer:
1.e4 e5: 4.0/7 (+2, =4, -1)
- d4 d5: 3.0/8 (=6, -2)
- e4 Nf6: 5.0/6 (+4, -2)
- e4 d6: 0.5/1 (=1)
Ouch I should have remembered at least that one! And others using his “Bust to the King’s Gambit”. When he played 1. e4, e5 did he usually face 2. f4 ?
Thanks for the historical analysis!
ETA… jjamesge1 noted this in his first post about Fischer, as I reread the whole thread. 
So I’m not the first to have noted this… but I’ll let it stand, anyway.
It may be a stupid observation, but it could also be noted that when it is spoken of Fischer’s favoring e4 we are speaking of rated games and/or recorded games.
You might say, “duh!” which is fine. But it doesn’t mean that he never favored anythng but e4, ever. Obviously he would have trained other systems, to learn that e4 was “best”? ETA - it seems to me there could be a big chunk of chess history with Fischer the world knows nothing about.
Just sayin’
Thanks for these data. I highlighted the part I found most interesting: in 8 games where he responded to 1.d4 with 1… d5, he didn’t win any, and only netted 3 total points. To me that stands out, given Fischer’s overall dominance - and might have reinforced his own strong preference to respond with 1… Nf6.
Although I’m a bit surprised he didn’t experiment with the Albin Counter Gambit: 1.d4 d5 2. c4 e5… 
(recalling a well-worn earlier thread). That’s gotta have more going for it that 1.e4 Nf6, for example!