1.d4 doesn't control d4 and 1.f4 doesn't control e4.
1.d4 vs. 1.f4
Sort:
I know, just a typo. 1.d4 kind of does becuase the queen now watches that square but yeah pieces don't control the squares they occupy.
Yes, it's yet another comparison thread! Here we will be looking at the pros and cons of each:
1.d4
Pros: controls e5 while opening lines for the bishop. Doesn't weaken the kingside. Works well with a c4 pawn. Black can't play 1...e5 and obtain a playable game unless white goes wrong somewhere.
Cons: A well timed ...c5 gives black some great dynamic counterchances. Heavily theoretical, so black will likely know the territory better.
1.f4
Pros: controls e5. Keeps the d-pawn flexible, so d3 is good at times. Can play the Bird Wing if black goes for 1...c5. After Nf3 the e5 square obtains extra support as the knight isn't blocking this pawn.
Cons: Weakens the kingside. Delays development. Black gets a free hand in development to compensate for the somewhat slow reinforcing e5 plan. 1...e5 is playable giving black some dynamic compensation for the pawn center after 2.fxe5,d6. If white opts for the b3-Bb2 plan black may weaken the e-pawn with a thematic ...d4 push, and d5 pushes against f5-b6-Bb7 Dutches likely put it out of fashion years ago, in other words f4 weakens e3 since a pawn will likely end up here. Not too ambitious. Black gets easy equality... by playing natural developing moves. Reversed Leningrad doesn't usually work because black has more information to work with due to white going first (maybe this compensates for white going first anyway?) Pawns on f4 and c4 don't usually work as the central pawns are usually backward, and this leaves weak squares and diagonals behind.
Summary:
Both have their merits, but 1.d4 is simply better. Even 1.Nf3 is as it develops a piece while controlling e5, and b3-Bb2 goes with it without too much weakening.