Not really, it's much too early by the first move for the nature or course of the game to be decided. Both 1.e4 and 1.d4 can be played in a way to suit the taste of any player.
*Inb4 stereotypical responses of e4 being tactical and d4 being position*
(p. 157)
CHAPTER
9
Subtle Queen
Pawn Openings
WHAT A DIFFERENCE A PAWN MOVE MAKES. The kind of game that
develops from 1. d4 or 1. e4 frequently differs dramatically. If the d-
pawn openings usually develop relatively slowly with decisive action
reserved for the middlegame, many e-pawn openings involve hand-to-
hand fighting directly in the opening--often in the first 10 moves or so.
When White begins with 1. e4, he immediately frees the way for his
King Bishop to go to c4, where it strikes at f7, a key square for attacking
the Black King. (Compare this kind of attack with 1. d4, which opens up
the Queen Bishop, which may then be moved to f4 [not c4] and which
then hits c7 rather than endangering the King by attacking f7.) In addi-
tion, speedy development of the Kingside pieces permits easy castling for
White, which brings the Rook into play. The end result can be a very quick
win for White against Black, if the second player makes a few weak moves.
Among non-masters, the e-pawn openings usually lead to quicker wins
(or losses) than the d-pawn debuts.
As for play at the higher levels, grandmasters prefer e- or d-pawn
openings largely as a matter of personal taste. Equally great players will
disagree as to whether 1. e4 or 1. d4 is the better move. Some world cham-
pions such as Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov have preferred 1. e4;
some titleholders such as Jose Capablanca and Mikhail Botvinnik have
played 1. d4 predominantly. But most masters, while holding definite
views as to whether 1. e4 or 1. d4 is the better move for their style and
temperament, do not have fixed views as to which move is intrinsically
superior.
The current thinking is that for all practical purposes, the moves are
of about equal strength. Choose the opening scheme that better suits your
approach to chess.
Alburt, Lev, and Larry Parr. 1997. Secrets of the Russian Chess Masters, Volume 2: Beyond the Basics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Thank you. This is a very good answer.
However, despite the commonly accepted theory that e4 and d4 are roughly equal (and data seem to support this claim), white has had far more success with d4 in recent (past decade or so) world championships. Does anyone know why this might be?
2014 World Championship Focus on Belin an e4 opening. In recent decade as you say d4 "had far more success" maybe because e4 was well studied at the moment so there may be good preparations specially for black players. In the long run white will have more success soon if almost players are preparing for d4.
Well, it's just my opinion.
I will agree that if you are an e4 player you are more tactical and if you are a d4 player you are good at patient maneuvering of your pieces.
I will agree that if you are an e4 player you are more tactical and if you are a d4 player you are good at patient maneuvering of your pieces.
Interestingly enough, however, in the recent World Championship Match, Carlsen chose 1.e4 to aim for more simplified/endgame-like or calm manouvering positions, while Anand went with 1.d4, aiming for sharp, double-edged play.
This shows that it doesn't matter what of the two you play on move 1, there are plenty of lines for everyone's taste to be found in both cases.
"Your games show total lack of middlegame understanding"
I disagree... Can you explain or give an example?
Its exactly the same
I can't take this seriously when most of my games are 45|45 yet you choose a blitz game as an example... I resigned the game at move 15 because I was drunk and wanted to watch TV instead. I don't take blitz seriously. Can you use an example from one of my 45|45 games?
I can't take this seriously when most of my games are 45|45 yet you choose a blitz game as an example... I resigned the game at move 15 because I was drunk and wanted to watch TV instead. I don't take blitz seriously. Can you use an example from one of my 45|45 games?
Probably one of the worst excuses I've ever heard.
Here's an example from one of your most recent games. Even though it's 25|15, it's plenty enough time to think:
Here's a better idea: Give us a game where you think you demonstrated good positional understanding.
I think you're confused. He asked me why I resigned. Therefore it's not fair to say that I was just making an excuse.
Anyway you're right that that was a bad game, but it's dubious that you couldn't use an example from a 45|45 game. If it's true that I have a "total lack of middlegame understanding" then this should be evident in all of my games. I'm guessing you just looked for my worst game, skipping past the 45|45 games because they didn't support the aforementioned claim.
"Here's a better idea: Give us a game where you think you demonstrated good positional understanding."
http://www.chess.com/home/computer_analysis?id=1041224357&game_type=2
I feel this game is a fair representation of my ability. It's not my best or my worst. There are mistakes but remember that I'm not claiming to be a great middlegame strategist. I'm just refuting the idea that I'm utterly incompetent.
"Here's a better idea: Give us a game where you think you demonstrated good positional understanding."
http://www.chess.com/home/computer_analysis?id=1041224357&game_type=2
I feel this game is a fair representation of my ability. It's not my best or my worst. There are mistakes but remember that I'm not claiming to be a great middlegame strategist. I'm just refuting the idea that I'm utterly incompetent.
You have to provide a link to the game itself, not the computer analysis. I believe that only you can have access to the computer analysis.
The classic distinction is e4 is open and tactical while d4 is closed is positional.
But that's not really true. Variations of every defense to either first move run the gamut from open to closed and tactical to positional.
IMO it's not a very useful question. Although I suppose some coaches recommend young students start with 1.e4 and go for sharp lines to practice tactics.
e4 is a lot more tactical in MOST BUT NOT ALL openings.
d4 is a lot more closed in MOST BUT NOT ALL openings. They have a very different feel to them for anyone above fish level.
Now you'll have people come on here and saying "oh no, that's not true, because the Breyer Ruy Lopez is a highly closed and strategic position while the Chigorin defence to d4 is highly tactical".
Just ignore that, they will be contrarian to EVERYTHING said about characteristics of a chess opening. For example if one said the King's Gambit was tactical, there would be individuals saying actually it's not, because in this one particular variation both players have to play into it's strategic. If someone said the petroff was drawish at the upper levels when noone makes a mistake, they would say no it's not.
If you play well respected d4 openings, you will end up in strategic positions more, if you play well respect e4 openings you will end up in tactical positions more.
That's why the d4 openings are called closed and semi-closed while the e4 ones are called open or semi-opened.
Let me be contrary again 
There really is no purely tactical or positional position anyway. In a real game it's all mixed together.
But I suppose all this splitting hairs isn't very useful or informative to people asking basic questions.
Yes, 1.e4 will probably more often be a tactical fight early and 1.d4 will probably more often be slow developing.
Are there any fundamental differences between e4 and d4 openings in terms of resultant games? What type of player would be better suited for 1. e4 and vice versa?