1. e4 vs 1. d4

Indeed, if you are drunk.

Kinda like claiming that 1.e4 a6 is the Najdorf, under a different move order.

I'm just learning so what are the big differences between the Pirc and the KID. To my amature eye, at the end of 5 moves both end up in this position. Whites side may be different but to me they play very similarly. Not trying to troll, just understand the differences.

If you move the pieces at one side of the board, then you will never, ever learn anything.

Even in seemingly identical positions, a tiny difference may force a complete change of plans/ strategy. The overall pawn structures in the KID and Pirc are completely different, so the play evolves in a very different fashion.

Betul juga la kamu cakap

Attempts at a different move order, will begin to elicit different responses that, end up forcing the position away from the one you hoped to transpose to, especially as the skill of those you play increase. They will know better how to punish you for innacurate play.

What I believe now would be:

For Adults who wants to play reasonable game in short,

1.d4 is better try. Some of my friends, after I briefly cover some opening principles like development, space, center control,...

Reinvented the London system and give me a difficult game. What's heartbreaking is I need to design a queen trap to e q u a l i z e my game after a mistake, and still a difficult game for me to holds the queen against night , pawn , rook. Perhaps he is a bright beginner with experiance in other chess-form games.

Yet after he tried 1.e4 , without knowing any exact lines, you imagine...

I would say 1.e4 you need more study of early moves, say the correct path to the 5-7 move tybiya, with serous amount of tactical justification or "positional tactics". For 1.d4, the error margin is larger (Visually poor moves are often in fact nice sidelines or even strong system played in weird move order), and allows player to seeks and realize his own goal in more original way.

I should add that 1.e4 e5 contain nice and easy-to-find material for tactics and quick positional disaster and worthy to study. Yet, studying it and clinging to it are different things!

Lastly I would illustrate the danger of playing 1.e4 e5 without accquinted to the early lines : 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.0-0

With the queens still on the board, can one without previous knowledge really play 5...f6, the taboo pawn push, without any doubt? 

Hope this gives an alternative view to the discussion. Thanks.

I play 1.d4 and there is a lot more sidelines I still at least win

lol...the OP was 13 when he posted this 7 years ago.  I wonder if he is still tracking his thread.

Does this win the prize for longest-running thread on chess.com??

Beginners must learn tactics first, then strategy. After 1.e4 we see more tactical positions appearing. And after 1.d4 we see more positional positions appearing.

Totally depends on your level and the way in which you play in the opening. There is a theory that because playing 1.e4 tends to lead to open games more than 1.d4 which therefore leads to more tactical positions it's better to play 1.e4 but I think it's quite a vague and biased outlook, imo. Firstly, 1.d4 can lead into at least the majority of the main 1.e4 openings and secondly even if you do play a queens pawn game it depends on which variation you choose as to it being tactical or not as some are more tactical than others (take the Trompowsky for instance). I would say sub 1600 stick with 1.e4 to esnure an open game (for practice purposes) but over 1600 it's totally dependent on your style and which variations you choose as to how tactical 1.d4 can be compared with 1.e4 and should make no difference to your progress. 

e4 is much more better and for those who are afraid from sicillian just play e4 Nc3 f4 Nf3 and attack

e4 for an aggressive game with tactical traps everywhere

d4 for a slow and maneuvering game which is tactic proof and presides on strategy 

...or vice versa.

d4 openings can be aggressive and tactical, too.

Consider the Grunfeld, the Chigorin, the King's Indian Defense, the Benko Gambit . . .

Pfren is a party pooper. It would be lovely a world on black and white where you could rely on cliches to describe it.

I don't get it. Why is it a difficult choice? 1.e4 is better because it lets your Queen go to 4 potential squares (e2,f3,g4,h5) and Bishop to 5 potential squares (e2,d3,c4,b5,a6) totalling 9. 1.d4 only grants you 7 potential squares (d2,e3,f4,g5,h6 for Bishop and d2,d3 for Queen). 1.e4 is more accurate because it gives you more freedom and flexibility. By playing something other than 1.e4 people want to avoid theory and preparation.

If I am playing White and Black plays Sicilian, i get so happy because White gets a comfortable game where he can fight for advantage. On the other hand, Black is winning after 1.d4 d5 because he can bore White to death - its a well known tactic called "grinding people down".

Both 1.e4 and 1.d4 have potential to be tactical and positional so if you want to understand chess you need knowledge of both as well as transpositional openings. I personally prefer using 1.e4 for majority of my games and use 1.d4 as a surprise weapon

Following this silly "logic" 1.e4 is clearly the worse move: By giving the queen and bishop greater mobility, you also raise the chances to blunder them early on.

I might suggest that generally e4 is more definite, I think this is shown by the validity of some of the options vs d4/c4, owens defence for example vs e4 being rather dubious but the english defence (its d4 counterpart) being an interesting and viable defence, there simply seem to be a wider range of options for black vs d4. That being said, I am a d4 player myself, I thrive on the transpositional possibilities and find that I can construct an interesting repertoire that gives me good chances of advantage and suits my playing style without having to worry about sharp topical lines