Chess: King Pawn Openings and Queen Pawn Openings

By: Alex Faull

In chess, the first moves of a game will usually revolve around controlling the center of the board. Because of this the two most common first moves in chess are as follows: e2 to e4 (king pawn to the center), and d2 to d4 (queen pawn to the center). Black's usual response is to mirror white's move.

Both opening get control of the center on the first turn, and at first glance seam nearly identical, but actually are very different. Both openings will cause the rest of the game to be very different. Yasser Seirawan lists some of the traits of king and queen pawn games in his book, Winning Chess: Openings. Here are some of them:

King Pawn Openings:

• Sharp play ensues immediately
• The king is more vulnerable
• The game is often shorter

Queen Pawn Openings:

• The fight is delayed
• The king is less vulnerable
• The game is usually longer

(Seirawan, 31)

Position of king pawn opening

Position of queen pawn opening

The main differences between king and queen pawn games stems from two things, one of which being how easy it is for both sides to develop their king-side forces. This might not seem very important, but it actually can affect how early you are able to castle and move your king to a safer position. A king pawn opening is far better at allowing your king-side pieces to be developed, since the king pawn opening allows the king-side bishop to move into play; while a queen pawn opening keeps the bishop trapped in.

The bishop can freely move out with a king pawn opening, meaning that the king can castle as soon as turn 4.

This difference changes the overall pace of the game. Since with a king pawn opening the king-side pieces are developed quicker and the king can be castled sooner, the game will last shorter than a game with a queen pawn opening. This also means that the conflict in a game will be delayed a handful of turns if a game is started with a queen pawn opening.

The second big difference in the two openings stems from the queen. In a queen pawn opening, the pawn has built in defense from the queen. If an enemy piece take the pawn, the queen can avenge it. But in a king pawn opening, the pawns are left alone, there is 0 built in defense for them. 

The queen can easily defend the center pawn, making it easier to play defenseively

In, Winning Chess: Openings, Seirawan points out that in his king pawn opening chapter, "White's e4-pawn was constantly besieged and required protection"(Seirawan, 73). This isn't surprising, since taking the e4-pawn would push white out of the center, so it would be only natural for black to try and capture it. And the same thing happens with queen pawn openings, except it is much harder to take the queen pawn.

This built in protection causes the difference of sharp vs. delayed play. In a king pawn opening, one clever or aggressive move can allow a player to take their opponents center pawn, or one stupid move can cause someone to lose their center pawn. However, with a queen pawn opening a clever move will likely not be enough, since the queen will make it that much harder to take the center pawn.

When I decided to test out both openings, I went up against a chess AI. I am admittedly horrible at chess, so I got crushed easily every time. I tended to have more success using an aggressive style of play to be better with the king pawn opening, trying to use the AI having a weaker defense over the center than with a typical queen pawn opening. But I found that I much preferred the queen pawn opening, since it is much more forgiving of my frequent mistakes.

Also, I prefer the slower, and more patient strategy promoted by a queen pawn opening, trying to use the defensive advantage of the queen pawn opening. Either opening seems strong, however the first move isn't everything. Once your pawn in center, what's next? In order to figure this out, I plan to ask myself the question: how does one defend their center pawn, and attack the enemy center pawn?

Work Cited:

Seirawan, Yasser. Winning Chess Openings. Gloucester Publishers Ltd, 2003.