1. e4 vs 1. d4

One would think, based on your statement, that you are confused, considering you started the hypothetical talk about Tal's play...

All that fascinating rot aside, as black, I'll tell you that I tend to have the most fun against e4.

I've always found 1. e4 offered a better game as white. It gets the KB out quickly which facilitates castling, and while it invites the Sicilian, I'd rather face that defense than the Kings Indian or Grunfeld. But it's mostly a matter of taste.

Nameno, what I stated is a fact. Most of his sacrifices are refuted by modern chess theory and analysis.

Don't you ever let anything just go, Yereslov? Always one more go at saying some inane point again instead of clamming up and slinking offstage.

Uh-oh. He may be sending you a challenge, Doc. You know, since he is playing at Master level now.

If he's playing at master level, he's using a computer, since he seems to be a 900 player in the flesh. We won't have to worry about him bothering us for much longer, if that's the case.

I prefer 1. d4 as white usually has a small but slight edge in most of the lines, and also I think black can equalize in many ways against 1. e4 with dynamic equality

This is one reason why you'll never be a good player. You are too hung up on the parameters you think theory has over chess. Tal didn't pay a damn bit of attention to it and he became a WCC. Think that over carefully. It doesn't matter what theory is said to be according to computers, if humans can't play that well...

once again, you only show how much of a....____________ (fill in the blank community, I sure you all have your own idea about Yereslov) you are. Get over yourself. You have nothing on anyone here, regardless of what chess theory is. Go look up the meaning of the word theory.

If you go ponder all of this over, I still question your ability to absorb it and use it constructively. Why don't you and actually prove one of here wrong for once....

"feeling like an IM" ? let alone you couldn't beat a 1100

kco, he might mean Imaginary Master.

yeah you seem to be on the right path on that one.

It's worse: I know an IM & occasionally play him. I have to struggle just to be even material by about move 30, but usually my position is just busted anyhow, even if. But Yereslov would just be demolished right off the bat whether he played e4 or d4.

e4, d4, c4, Nf3, and g3 are equally strong ways to open the game. I like e4, I used to like Nf3. I think that e4 TENDS to be more violent than d4 because of 3 reasons: 1) It's usually easier to open the game without having to sac a pawn, i.e., d4 after e4 is easier than e4 after d4,  2) You can castle quicker, which is usually how one brings rooks into the game, and 3) The Bf1 hits the weak f7 square (and h7). But the first move is only one move. I remember a time when Kasparov's favorite was d4 while Karpov's was e4.

It is noteworthy about the choices of Kasparov and Karpov, considering the styles they were best known for...

Kasparov had an inordinate fear of the Sicilian, IIRC, which may explain his aversion to 1. e4.

I've thought about opening 1. d4... but then I decided that life is too short.

http://chessgames.com/perl/explorer?pid=15940&side=white

He didnt exactly avoid e4, he had almost as many games as he did o d4 

Agree as variety keeps the game interesting.

I play 1.e4 because I HATE 1. d4 d5, but thats just my opinion.

I think its easier to beat the sicilian than to beat lets say... Queen's gambit semi slav