1.e4 or 1.d4

Thanks. that should be 34% draw. I changed it

                                              f4

White's King's Bishop's Pawn opening avoids giving Black's KKt a KP target and enables 2.Kt-KB3 after, but is rarely played except by skilled players as it can expose White's king to attack (although if Black replies 1..P-K4 White can transpose into the Kings Gambit). Henry Bird (1832-1908) used it often, but any player takes a great risk in advancing his KBP too soon

Taken from chessops website

The fact is that 1.d4 and 1.e4 playars are two mentality and little ones are universal .

E4, D4 has a fundimental disadvantage, with e4 A diaginal is freeded for the queen to assert control over, With 1 D4 there is none.

Why just e4 or d4...how about the others like c4, f4, or any other pawn openings and even Nc3 or Nf3?

I actually do not prefer either one. I choose f4 over both of them although I use to play both e4 (mostly) and d4 (a little). I'm not saying it's better but that's my preference.

I choose d4 because this has always happened to me

Twain's great.  How 'bout the old Yankee and Pilot's pitcher Jim Bouton, "Tell your statistics to shut up."

Twain popularized Disraeli's quote.  From whom he first heard it is not documented.

avoid the entire issue 1.f4

1.g4

Any opening move is good when you reach the finale goal of check Mate

To 1. e4, or not to 1. e4: that is the question.  

I am just a beginner at chess and just starting to learn the art of chess openings. The advantages of 1. e4 are the multitudes of brilliant openings that come out of the 1. e4. A simple King's Pawn game to the Sicilian, French Defense, the Scotch Game, Giuoco Piano, the Ruy Lopez, and many others that have not been mentioned. All of them with brilliant designs and extraordinary amounts of variations. Whereas the 1. d4 has its popularity because of openings such as the Queens Gambit, King's Indian, and Nimzo-Indian. All three having high levels of success, but lacking the sort of romanticism that comes with the options after 1. e4. Ultimately, you have to decide what feels best to your style of play and equates with a high level of competency.

finnally some one agrees with me 1.g4

It takes the best players to realize that.

that is true

Kasparov hasn't realized it though has he?

he forgot about 1 g4 awhile ago thanx to amnesia like all the great players

d4 takes more moves to castle, and generally becomes a very tactical game in my experience.

The advantages of 1. d4 are the multitudes of brilliant openings that come out of it. The Queen's Gambit, King' Indian, and Nimzo-Indian are but three of a multitude of rich ideas, "all of them with brilliant designs and extraordinary amounts of variations." Let's not forget other queen pawn openings, like the Torre Attack, the Colle (Okay, that one gets tiresome, but then, so does the Italian.), the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit and others, many with all sorts of interesting transpositional possibilities. There is no lack of romanticism, just the inability of many myopic king pawn players to see the beauty and richness inherent in queen pawn openings.

Beside the opinions or tastes expressed, there is in my case a preference for winning a game. I know some would rather go down in a blaze of self-deluded glory playing a speculative attack incorporating a spectacular sacrifice which could have worked but didn't. To my thinking, they just blew it and crashed in ignominious defeat. I'd rather win, quickly if possible, but win even if it means grinding down an opponent slowly.

A lot of beginners, and even many average players don't like to play against queen pawn games. This can give a d4 player a bit of a psychological advantage. Without some knowledge of the Queen's Gambit, many players of the black pieces will falter early and give white plenty of opportunity  to either crush them tactically, or whittle them down steadily and inexorably. I've seen a pall of dread fall over more than one opponent's face when they saw that queen pawn move. Especially, when they've been crushed by it before.

Of course, when I get black, I often have to play against 1. e4. Frequently I play the French. It's hardly what I would consider a "romantic" opening. It can be plenty dull on both sides of that fence in many variations. Often I play it because I know a lot of e4 players hate it. Lower rated players can soon find themselves defending as white. That's hardly a ringing endorsement for them having played 1. e4.

Grandmaster play may be another story. I'll worry about that when I have to play against them, which at my current rate ought to be about half-past never. Meanwhile, I'll likely continue to play 1. d4 or 1. c4 openings because ... they're more fun.

right..!

The choice between 1. e4 and 1. d4 is one of temperament. Generally, attacking players prefer 1. e4 while positional players prefer 1. d4, but there are many exceptions. The great attacking player Frank Marshall, for example, habitually played 1. d4, while the modern resurrection of 1. e4 as a favorite is largely because of the rediscovery of its positional strength, particularly in the Ruy Lopez, but also in supposedly aggressive openings such as the King's Gambit. It's a matter of style that runs in cycles. When I was young, I preferred 1. d4, but later on, although remaining a positional player, I turned almost exclusively to 1. e4. I found the 1. e4 opening repertoire easier to manage. Against 1. d4 there were just too many "Indian" defenses for my tastes.