1. e4 vs 1. d4

The percentage for black losing is higher on d4. This says something. Not much but something. e4 is more popular in Grandmaster games by over 450,000 moves!

Well over a million grandmaster games have started with e4. This says a lot!

I used to play d4, now I prefer e4.  I like the open games better, there's more variety, and e4 seems strategically justified in that after every other opening move, black's strategy is to prevent e4.

I think a lot of the "boring" label on d4 comes from the inability to attack quickly in many openings, and from the Orthodox QGD, which many people play.  There is certainly nothing boring about most Indian systems, though, and in fact I love to play against the KID.

If you're THAT concerned about the Open Sicilian against e4, there are plenty of good anti-Sicilian systems available, even aside from the Morra Gambit -- Grand Prix attack, closed fianchetto systems, Alapin variation, Bb5 systems, King's Indian Attack, etc.

I agee. I have found that the average player (like myself) often has difficulty gaining a significant advantage and eventually the game gets to a situation where neither side seems to have effective options. It might be different in more highly rated games.

I agree. There aren't any boring openings, just boring players. It's subjective anyway.

However, d4 gives a slightly higher rating performance only if the database is not filtered to the world's elite players. When you filter for only GM level (2500+), the rating performance is reversed and e4 gives about +25 ELO higher performance than d4. This makes sense to me. d4 tends to offer more lasting static advantages like the bishop pair or space while e4 is more often based on a delicate dynamic balance and initiative (such as kingside attacks in the Sicilian). d4 openigs tolerate inaccuracies a bit more from both sides without drastic changes in evaluation. It takes a really great player to be able to maximize e4's advantages.

Anyway, such debates are pretty silly. There isn't a clearly best move and even if there were, what matters is what you like to play and do best with. If you do best with 1. b3, that is the best choice to maximize your performance even if 1. e4 is objectively stronger.

e4 are for tacticians while d4 are for positional players ;)

I agree with what someone else said earlier that it'd be best to be able to know how to punch with both fists (1d4 & 1e4), however I personally prefer 1e4 on the basis that it tends to lead into quick tactical attacking games. On the practical side of things, if I'm going to get good at both 1e4 and 1d4, my opening preparation suddenly jumps from labyrinth-sized to mega-labyrith-sized. Given that most of us aren't at the master level and have limited study/play time, and we want to study all phases of the game and not just the opening, it makes the most sense to me to stick with one or the other. Even Nigel Short at the GM level has made a life-long career starting his games solely with 1.e4. 

I also think picking an opening based on stats, wanting to avoid a certain opening system like the sicilian, or rejecting an opening because it isn't currently played at the GM level isn't the best way to choose an opening. I think what's foremost is picking an opening one feels comfortable with and realizing that there are a variety of ways to deal with opening replies one would rather not face. I also believe we get stronger as players by having to deal with openings outside our comfort zone.

e4!

 While I'm prejoratively a 1. e4 player, when I do play 1. d4 these days, it's to get a London.  I have never lost a tournament game with it, although against some players, it can be hard to play for a win. 

So whenever I'm white and a draw is a satisfactory outcome, I'm not bashful at all about playing the London System.  It is VERY difficult for black to beat, although he has several paths to (more or less) equality.

Chuck G

I tried it out and I won!

Computers will play with 1.e4 and 1.d4 equally well.

I find that humans are more used to 1.e4 and that when you play 1.d4 against them, you get a slight psychological advantage.

Plus, there are many people only too happy to play the Sicilian or Ruy against 1.e4, but there aren't as many people willing to play against 1.d4, since most are inexperienced against 1.d4

Also, it depends on your style of play.

d4 is much more forgiving in the openings, the games are slow, and are usually longer

I personally play 1.d4 to get my opponent out of a comfortable state, but I've been playing 1.e4 all of my life so I feel "at home" when I play 1.e4

I made the switch from 1.e4 to 1.d4 this year

I don't think you should choose just one to play. I think you should play both and maybe the english or reti if you want. That's what I'm going to do.

What do you mean "Hard"?

Oh, ok.

More comments and observations please.

d4 is slow

e4 is fast

 well a tend to agree that e4 is better for beginners as their tends to be more obvious basic strategies. i do however now play d4 as it seems more defensively sound as well as providing many attacking options - though some which i would have not seen in my early playing days. when i originally played d4 for instance it would be boring as i wouldn't have immediate ideas for mounting an attack. so e4 for beginners always... and if you feel the need to move onto playing d4 as i have; best to check out some basic opening strategies first.

... and in response to these two posts i am agreeing with the first considering it states that it is better for trashy players as otherwise it can get boring. While the second post mentions that Magnus Carlsen shows it would not be boring. OK well I don't no who this Magnus Carlsen guy is, but I'm sure he's no trashy player.
So in all seriousness as quoted from shotokun16 'Are you kidding me'???

I take advantage of this topic to expose my problem :D:

I played a lot with 1. f4, then i moved to 1. c4 because I thought f4 lies to inferior position. Now I don't like 1. c4 because I think it gives to the black too much freedom and the game may result a bit too slow.

I'm just going to choose one from 1.e4 and 1. d4 to become Candidate Master before the next december (or I hope to :P).

I never played both, and I'm a bit scared about 1. e4 because the black can choose the systems and I have not experience.

I think 1. d4 has not so much theory but i think that too close games bore me.

I like semi-open games, I usually play Kan or Scheveningen Sicilian against 1. e4 and Benko gambit against 1. d4

So.. what should I choose?

I think there is a popular misconception about 1 e4 and 1 d4 . The misconception is that e4 leads more to tactical games and d4 leads more to positional games. One of the most popular 1e4 openings is the Ruy Lopez ( Spanish ) and it is very positional in nature with its long maneuvers and vast amounts of theory in several lines. I believe either opening can lead to positional struggles or tactical slug fests , depending on the lines chosen and the choices of the players involved. Some choose 1d4 in the belief that there is less theory to learn than when playing 1 d4. I am not sure this is valid either. There may be more theory in the various sicilians than any other opening but with 1d4 you will face a larger number of openings I believe given the popularity of the sicilian. You may face queens gambits declined and accepted, or slav and semi-slav , then there are tha various "indian" defences as well as the gruenfeld. If you dont like playing against sicilians or dont score well against them then the choice is much simpler as you shouldnt play 1e4 .

1.e4 vs 1.d4?

If you want an expert answer to the question of which is objectively better, take a note from IM John Watson, who's short answer is "... it depends upon the preferences of the individual player." As to what the best players play, he reminds us that the data will drift with the fashion: e4 in some eras, d4 in others. When a particular Black defense stymies White's e4 assertions, fashion will drift to d4 - and vice versa. Watson suggests that the average player - and the 'ordinary' master - shouldn't worry about this fashion and that plenty opportunity will abound in either direction.

I'll add my own note here. If one is playing in a local club with a limited number of players, openings can become an interesting issue. If 15 of the 20 players in the club play the Sicilian Defense to White's 1.e4 and YOU can't stand running into that, selection of one's opening choice may be paramount. Still, if you want to get better at the game, you can't run away from every Black defense that intimidates you. Heck, I dread ANY Black defense in the hands of an expert in THAT defense.

Again, if you're getting killed by missing obscure tactical shots in the first 15 moves of a wide-open King's pawn game, opting for 1.d4 has its allure. However, if you want to improve your tactical savvy unencumbered by too many positional implications, take out your 1.e4 weapon and have at it. Don't look at the scores and outcomes but at the measure of your decision-making. At least one school of chess teaching suggests that you approach learning the game in the roughly the same order as the Western world developed the openings. That would be an emphasis on 1.e4 first.

I don't take my own advice very often, so I've swapped from 1.e4 to 1.d4 and back again so many times my head swims. Currently, I'm taking my lumps playing 1.e4. (Dang, all those Sicilians!)

--- DrawMaster

I've been a c4 player for quite awhile now but the positions are really starting to bore me. As such I am formulating a d4 repertoire as we speak, with much more aggressive and theoretical variation choices!

Go d4!