1. e4 vs 1. d4

There are always two sides the argument, though. :)

A d4 player, for example, would argue that, while e4 opens diagonals for white's queen and king bishop, it also allows ...e5 for black, opening the same diagonals for his own queen and king bishop.

d4, on the other hand, makes ...e5 more difficult for black to get in, as the e5 square is now already under white's control from the d4 pawn.

Much of the d4 openings, even, go dozens of moves deep, where black is attempting to get in an ...e5 pawn break, while white continues to clamp down on the square.

. . . or you can play e4 and let black equalize with ...e5 immediately. :D

d4's also a protected pawn, so white doesn't have to worry about any immediate threat against it, while e4 players often have to use their d3 pawn, their g2 bishop, or their nc3/nd2 knight to protect their vulnerable e pawn.

As for the theory and prep argument, I'd say both d4 and e4 openings are loaded with theory. Pretty much equally. Yes, you might avoid a lot of e4 theory by adopting 1.d4, but then you're also venturing into the territory of a ton of d4 theory.

Brah i am only 789 fide but i know d4 and e4 are both equally strong if used properly brah

I would say the correct answer is neither is better. It all depends on your style. In e4, your fighting for tempo and your playing in open positions. With d4, your fighting for squares and playing in closed positions. I prefer e4 if your lower rated.

I believe that our 'Garry Kasparov 18' just got his account deleted about an hour ago - perhaps for the very reason from using his appellation[?].

Possibly - perhaps via a 'Russian version' of chess.com - who knows?

Anyone who says that e4 is sharper then d4 should see some KID games (Excluding the fianchetto variation 

Can we conclude that 1.e4 and 1.d4 are absolutely equivalent by measure of objective end result (win, loss, draw)? Unless we are prepared to argue that White wins by force after 1.d4 but not after 1.e4, or vice versa, then we admit that both moves lead to the same end result, assuming best play. Hans Berliner created an opening system using 1.d4 whereas Weaver Adams explored the Bishop’s Opening & Vienna Game. You can find a variation tree of Berliner’s system, some of which has accompanying Stockfish Analysis, at the link below.

http://oeco.hopto.org/mediawiki/index.php/Berliner,_Hans_-_The_System

e4 for life

e4 vs d4

i feel d4 is better 

e4 aims for next move d4 and controlling center

but d4 aims for c4 and attacking on queenside

It all comes down to which opening system you want to mangle.

I don't play either of them generally, but I find that e4 has so many more directions that can be taken in the game that as white one needs to be a lot better prepared.  There are still quite a few variations starting with d4, but no where near as many as white so it is probably better for newer players and those who don't want to learn a lot of opening theory.

D4, because it fits my style of play much better.   I also like to open with Nf3 sometimes.  

This survey is only a complete waste of time!

And that's the way I see it! ...

The good thing about e4 is that it allows you to form a non-e4-deficient center (which is a problem with d4).

The bad thing about e4 is that the Sicilian exists

The good thing about d4 is that it takes 2 squares of the center - the queen is protecting the pawn, hence the extra square.

The bad thing about d4 is that it also allows Black to seize lots of center squares, making it a fragile position for both sides where a single mistake will destroy your control of the center.

Just a matter of preference.