1. e4 vs 1. d4

Hi, Cameron.  Personally, even though I no longer play neither of these 'openings', I don't believe 1.e4 is any better than 1.d4; either one of these initial opening moves is to be considered equal by most leading masters today.

However, on a level of preference only, one could say that 1.e4 is 'better' [for him/her] if they prefer or excel in openings [as White] that are most likely to lead towards open positions/games; the same being true for 1.d4, should a particular player prefer openings that are most likely to lean towards closed positions/games.

On the other side of the coin though, 1.d4 [to date] has become a more preferred or modern choice of initial opening moves among leading masters only because it has a reputation of being more solid, as 'that' centralized pawn is consequently already protected by the queen.  Any inherent 'downside' to the Queen's Pawn Opening is that one is limiting [or delaying] immediate choices towards kingside development and castling there.

With 1.e4, naturally, the centralized pawn is hanging, albeit, only temporarily.  Whether 'that' is going to become a later weakness [or strength, perhaps] or not depends entirely on the precise opening/defence by either player; however, the inherent 'pros' of the King's Pawn Opening immediately open active diagonals for the queen and king's bishop, and consequently 'attack' or influence more squares initially than does the Queen's Pawn Opening, inclusive of accelerating [perhaps preferred] kingside castling.

To sum up then, I really don't believe that any one of the other remaining 18 initial White opening moves are to be seen as being any 'worse-off' [nor better] towards that of inferior/superior initial-move choices [than 1.e4 or 1.d4].  I firmly contend that there's still much more left to gain in opening theory amongst those lesser-known initial moves for both Black and White.

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

e2 will not be occupied becaus it is in the way of the bishop, and won't really give the queen much scope. f3 will almost certainly be occupied by a knight in 1.e4 openings. g4 and h5 will both be protected by a black knight on f6, that is of course, those squares aren't already blocked by a white knight or bishop. Such a statement that the queen has more scope after 1.e4 is absolutely ludicrous.

Really agree! Playing d4 also train beginners to distinguish between positionaly good (or acceptable move) and horrid move. Intermediates benefits form selecting the best one among many non-forcing moves, and appreciate why "mainline" got its status or why some frequently played line in the past suddenly died out what's the merit of the replacement. (See Tarrasch Defense-- For black, losing one tempo or making a soft move before 10th move in mainline causes moderately quick dismay). For advanced players, they can find rich idea of play as both sides has wide choice of plan and perfect their accuracy in fine moves or technical moves.

As for winning percentage, it cannot be a certification of d4 is better. Yet, it shows that white got harder life with 1.e4, in practice.

It's a shame the King's Gambit is avoid at the GM level.

It makes chess so much more exciting.

Too bad Fischer refuted it.

After playing d4 for a while and now learning e4....
both are obviously = but i find myself attacking kingside in 1.e4 while d4 i had to manuever and stuff just to break queenside before i got destroyed on the opposite.

At this time im enjoying e4 more but if you like playing against the KID and benoni i think d4 is potenitally more lethal

Wrong King's Gambit is seen from time to time at GM level.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1584993

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1473054

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1634564

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1641821

From time to time maybe, but that's also the case for the Parham Attack.

both out the window and in with f4 and c4.

i cant play d4 because of kings indian defense.what is your ideas?

avoid it

1.d4 is more positional. 1.e4 is more aggresive.

Both openings are good choices.It depends on whether you are an attacking player or a defensive one.

If you look at games of Spassky or Kasparov, you can't say that 1.d4 is not "more aggressive".

Yes. The activity or passivity of an opening move has more to do with the person playing it than the move itself.

1.d4 isn't aggreesive from the start. 1.e4 openings can go directly to attack within a very short period of time. 1.d4 openings provide more king safety and thus make attack impossible until at least the middle game.

15 moves:

22 moves:

Attack isn't as immeditate in 1.d4 openings. 

A 'boring' player in d4.

e4 or d4 can both be aggressive, it's just one move...

I love it when players claim that 1.e4 has been studied to death in comparison to 1.d4.

Have you studied the QGD or the King's Indian? There is barely anything there that has not already been scanned and studied by someone else.

It's not any less studied than the Ruy Lopez.

8.Qa4+ cannot be a logical move.

It's theory, as much as I love the idea of a 1300 questioning a super GM World Championship challenger.

It doesn't take a 2000+ rated player to realize that checking the king and then having to move the queen to a passive position is a mistake.

Actually, checking with Houdini it agree, so obviously this "theory" can be disregarded as a waste of time.