1.e4 or 1.d4

Generally, attacking players prefer 1. e4 while positional players prefer 1. d4, but there are many exceptions.

Too many exceptions to allow the generalization to stand.

I play d4! But lots of people preferto play e4!

this has all ready been done, look at any large database. e4 usually just-JUST beats out d4 when you consider contests between "equal" players.

I would like to offer, for your perusal and critique, a general theory of the initial position of chess.

Although I would not presume to say that I am the author of it,I don't recall ever having seen it stated in exactly this way.

The theory runs as follows:

1. White holds an advantage by virtue of the right to play the first move.

2. White has no first move available that wins by force against accurate play by Black.

3.  The move that gives White the most significant advantage is 1.e4...  However,this move has the drawback of demanding an extreme degree of accuracy from White in the subsequent play in order to maintain that advantage.

4. The move 1.d4... gives White a slightly less significant advantage,but the advantage thereby obtained is more easily maintained through reasonably accurate moves by White in the subsequent play.

5. There are several other first moves that produce a slightly less significant advantage for White than 1.d4... However,these moves demand a degree of accuracy from White in the subsequent play that is not less than that demanded by 1.d4...  These moves are ,therefore,inferior to 1.d4....

6. In short, 1.e4... is the sharpest move, 1.d4... is the more flexible move , others are less advantageous but still offer White a very small plus.

The great Bobby Fischer once said:

"e4 is best by test."

Enough said.

Also, d4 is not usually more tactical than e4....there's a reason why 1 d4 d5 is called a 'closed game' and 1. e4 e5 an 'open game'.

Both have advantages, and you should learn both, but personally i think all beginners should definitely begin with e4 - tactics is the fundament of strategy!

I play both now but was strictly an 1 e4 player for a couple of decades. The strange thing is that now I score better as white with 1 d4 in my otb chess but score better with 1 e4  here on chess.com....... go figure ! My suggestion is to try both and see which suits you better and/or gives you better results.

 I don't have any proof of it. It's a theory ,that I believe to be true,based upon my personal experience.

1 g4

 1 g4  is inferior to both 1 e4 and 1 d4 as well as half a dozen other first moves white can make according to my database. It scores less than 50% for white , which is unacceptable imo.

1.e4, when in a fighting mood. 1.d4, when your opponent loves 1.e4.

It's possible that e4 is centi pawns better than d4, but this is so insignificant that it comes down to style for which one you do best with. I doubt he can prove any of that at all, but my guess is that if one move is better by centipawns, it's e4. Maybe those tiny units are because of the lines it opens?

Compared to ! e4 or 1 d4, c4 is inferior, f4 is also inferior, but g4 is more inferior than both of them put together.

And that implies that with e4 you automatically have a decisive attack on f7, which tends to fail against accurate play. But it does show that e4 tends to be sharper, not really better unless you're good with sharp games of course.

d4 is not just a fight for a small edge except at GM level, but of course there 1 e4 is used the same way for the ruy lopez. I just like to find the plans for both sides in an opening and avoid the sharpness of some lines, because people who play those lines may be able to beat me not understanding anything about chess. But still I do play e4 as well, and sharp positions can be quite fun, but it's just not what I play the game for. But 1 d4 games are still won because of tactics at amateur level lol.

In fact, I can positionally crush people quickly sometimes because the positional mistakes tend to be pretty big if they don't know what they should be doing.

I prefer 1.d4. I like the generally posistional struggles in the games that result frome these. Of course, my opponent will occasionally pull out some less used respone to 1.d4 that leads to a more tactical game, but I've found those to be enjoyable too.

1.h4 is best because it can transpose to the immortal overprotection game (!)

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1334664 

If you need a second option, most world champions played both e4 & d4, personally, being a RJF fan, I have a slight bias towards e4 but I'm struggling with 1.d4 as generally speaking White can get around with less theory knowledge there. That being said, both can be played positionally or tactically. For example:

1. e4 positional: Karpov in the 70s/early 80s

1. d4 tactical: Alekhine, Kasparov

Imho the e4->sharp, d4-> positional classification stems from books for club players/expert players. E.g. I haven't seen a single "White" book on the sicilian which advocates Karpov's Be2 systems vs the Najdorf/Schevy and very few books are out there for the more "calm" Tarrasch French.

d4 = dull

i play e4

d4 is too complex ... if you know what i am talking about ....

but its your choice

the word in blue - Tally , isn't it Italy ?  ;)

 I clicked on that link but didnt find his statement ?  What was his statement ?

That is interesting, I tried to understand Fischer's "best by test" statement but at the same time I am not even close to understanding 2700+ chess so the only thing  I could do is look at statistics. In my database, it seems that e.g. in 2600-2700 Elo range 1.e4 performs slightly better than 1.d4, in 2700+ Elo range 1.e4 performs better than it does in the 2600-2700 Elo range. 

So maybe "best by test" is true for the best players. My personal experience from patzer quality chess was that in d4 I could afford more mistakes/inaccuracies and therefore I am trying to learn & play d4 atm.

Of course database statistics may well have a bias purely due to the sampling of the games there, but still this looks like an interesting thing to look at.