Both e4 and d4 have tons of theory behind them, and they both have tactical and postional outcomes, but I believe that e4 has more theory.

If you have time to study and it seems like you want to get that high which means lots of study time, then 1) e4 is the choice..."best by test" someone really good once said. If I had more study time, I would continue to play e4 although I don't and the Sicilian Defense has an amazing amount of theory just by itself. I have tried 1) f4 {Bird's Opening} and it's not as bad as some would have you believe (actually it's pretty good), especially if you like playing the King's Gambit like I do. The Sicilian and the Caro-Kann is what you'll see more than anything; the Sicilian is very heavy on theory and the Caro-Kann (can be play against most openings) is a very solid defense.

If you have little or no time, I think playing 1) d4 is actually better of the two choices you asked about; not that there's no theory to learn with Queen's Pawn openings, but I think the amount of defenses you'll see is not as heavy on theory as the Sicilian. King's Indian Defense, Slav, & Semi-Slav is most likely what you'll run across. Fischer did not mind seeing 1) d4 as he used the KID to neutralize and fight for the win against it; he also regarded 1) e4 as the best try for white.

I think a lot of it will come down to how much time you actually have to study and which defenses you would not mind seeing more.

e4 mainline theory > d4 mainline theory. But as to the e4 vs d4 it depends upon your choice of response to the numerous defenses.

For a beginner e4 will give them more chances for a sharp line. Not sure on gambit lines with e4 vs d4 and so many openings out there.

Howdy,

  1.d4 (with an eye toward 2.c4) entails a fair amount of theoretical "homework", also. Let's see, there's the Dutch, QGA (Holy smokes, but there's alot to that one), KID, Nimzo/Bogo, Tarrasch, Hennig-Schara gambit, Albin counter-Gambit, Budapest, Gruenfeld, QGD, Slav, Benko, Benoni and surely more.

 With 1.e4, White must be prepared to be 10 feet wide, but a mile deep with respect to theory and 1. d4 (Assuming his aim is 2.c4) it's virtually the opposite; well..something like that. YMMV and I'm just 1800 strength, so we'll let the Masters settle this one!

I don't have to earn my living on chess therefore I really do not care if I win or lose therefore I have always used e4. because e4 leads to more exciting play you never know what you going to face. IMO e4 is more tactical than d4. I have always played e4 otb exclusively and have good results against many openings in e4.

it is with many things in life, find something you enjoy and the results with come either way if you select e4 or d4.
sooner or later you will survive most things against e4.
in a tournament I found out my opponent always played the dragon so I used a week on chess mentor to find out the theory and managed to beat him.

Here's an idea. Play them both, alternating every other game, for 30 or 40 games as White. Then take a look at your results, and go with that. :)

Are you joking!!!!!! More than likely when you get to an e4 End Game the picture clears up to who is winning. With d4 End Game a chance the battle is doing on as they fight for position but it depends also if both sides want to make the d4 End Game tactical also.

I had to learn no theory for e4 but to Attack, attack and attack. Slay and piece moving or in the way of my Knight or Bishop getting to the King. Pins and Forks all day and all night. Check, Capture and Threats is the only thing i look for in e4 as my opponent is crying "WAIT. With d4 you have the chance to decorate the board for about 1 move and still not be out of the game. I spent a year studing d4 theory and still learning something new every week at chess.com.

Oh sorry he said theory. I do not think he knows the definition of theory. In that case i suggest if i lost to him after hearing this statement i want an instant rematch. And i play d4 if i had white as he shows how much knowledge of "d4