Yes 1. c4 or 1. Nf4 can transpose into lines reached after 1. d4 or 1. e4 but they may not should black play correctly. Hence the difference.
If I play 1.Nf3, how exactly are you planning on stopping me from transposing back into 1.d4...?
Yes 1. c4 or 1. Nf4 can transpose into lines reached after 1. d4 or 1. e4 but they may not should black play correctly. Hence the difference.
If I play 1.Nf3, how exactly are you planning on stopping me from transposing back into 1.d4...?
This question has been answered in this thread already.
After 1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 c5 for example now black is the side playing the reversed queen's gambit. I emphasize that I don't deem this line to be necessarily the best by black. But it is very good for the purpose of illustrating that if black wishes it can prevent white from playing the queen's gambit which is considered one of the strongest systems by white.
If you insist on making an inferior move choose 1. c4 rather than 1. Nf3.
I really hate playing the 1.c4 and 1.Nf3 systems. Please everyone listen to this man and never play it against me. Thank you.
1. d4 and 1. e4 having such a good performance is a piece of evidence that the orthodox theory of chess is right.
The orthodox theory teaches that you should put pawns directly in the center rather than trying to control the center from the flanks.
There are only two opening moves by white which put a pawn in the center namely 1. d4 and 1. e4 and these moves happen to be the most succesful.
It is also not a surprise why 1. c4 is better than 1. Nf3. Since the best opening move by white seems to be 1. d4 it is logical that black's best shot is to establish a pawn on d5 and 1. c4 is the only flank move that can prevent black from doing so.
My opinion about best possible first move by white can be summarized this way:
1.) Apart from e4 and d4 all other moves are inferior. There is nothing that you can achieve with other moves that can not be achieved by e4 or d4, but you risk certain disadvantages by moves other than d4 or e4.
2.) Though e4 looks more sharp and dangerous in reality black has ample resources to equalize. Very dangerous looking and agressive lines in e4 openings like the Kings Gambit or Scotch Game are in reality more dangerous to white than black. Even the Ruy-Lopez, which is truly a solid line can be equalized by the Berlin defense in a foolproof way.
3.) Objectively speaking the positional 1. d4 is the most powerful move that white can make because it guarantees lasting spatial advantage which black will find hard to break. The best for black is to accept the spatial disadvantage with some Queens Gambit Declined formation because the alternative is to engage in potentially suicidal hypermodern maneuvres. All in all white has more lasting chances to break black's resistance and at least a comfortable draw is not in jeopardy with this system. While in the sharp e4 system things can very quickly and very easily turn against white.
McShane chose a risky double edged line against the Scotch yesterday at the London Chess Classic rapid tournament and even with this - despite engines evaluating white's position slightly better in the early middle game - in practical terms Adams had to struggle for a draw.
If I play 1.Nf3, how exactly are you planning on stopping me from transposing back into 1.d4...?
After 1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 c5 for example now black is the side playing the reversed queen's gambit.
So black can transpose into a variant of the Tarrasch that has a bad reputation. Oh noooo!
Black can play that way anyway against the mainline 1.d4 stuff.
Since the best opening move by white seems to be 1. d4 it is logical that black's best shot is to establish a pawn on d5 and 1. c4 is the only flank move that can prevent black from doing so.
Then why is 1..Nf6 about twice as popular at the master level and scoring about even?
Not that I base my opinion on human game databases but even in them 1. c4 scores better:
I have already cited engine world championship statistics that give 1. c4 an even bigger lead.
Both human and engine statistics and logic favor 1. c4 over 1. Nf3.
I have not seen a single argument in favor of 1. Nf3. It is played a lot for its 'flexibility' but flexibility is not equal to 'performance'.
I think I quoted a different line than I intended.
I meant to quote you on your critique of hypermodernism by asking you to explain the success of so many hypermodern openings, namely the popular openings beginning with 1..Nf6 that don't transpose into a queen's gambit.
I think I quoted a different line than I intended.
I meant to quote you on your critique of hypermodernism by asking you to explain the success of so many hypermodern openings, namely the popular openings beginning with 1..Nf6 that don't transpose into a queen's gambit.
This thread concerns itself with the best opening ( move ) for white. Since the less hypermodern the first move by white the better performance it has it is the proponents of hypermodern theory that have explaining to do.
It is not enough to say that hypermodern openings challenge the orhodox theory and they have success. They challenge it but they have not overcome it and they have success but are not more succesful than orthodox openings. This is the point that has been lost sight of.
By the way I have just played a bullet game against 1. Nf3. Since before playing it I have read the renewed critique against 1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 c5 ( Tarrasch variant ) in this thread I decided to play exactly this line. The poor bullet player I am I feel that I have come out of the opening just fine:
Yes, I'm sure we'll all be convinced by your bullet games.
Way too many to list. Anything where white puts a knight on f3 and doesn't play f4 (except for maybe the Austrian Attack or Flick Knife variation, if even those) or f3 could qualify.
The Reti
Nimzo Larsen starting with 1.Nf3
Queen's Gambit
Catalan
Ruy Lopez
Giuco Piano
Mainline Najdorf
English
If you mean best opening for white irrespective of black playing the best move then the Damiano Defense 
Michael Adams - Hypermodern Theory 2 - 0
Yesterday at the London Chess Classic rapid tournament's quarter final some very instructional games were played relevant to the debate on the merits of hypermodernism.
In the first game between Michael Adams and Peter Svidler from move 1. Adams had a clear orthodox plan of establishing a pawn in the center and maintaining it there as long as possible which shined through all his moves. That's why after opening with 1. e4 he protected the e4 pawn directly by playing Qe2 and d3 and indirectly by playing g3-Bg2. Svidler responded by 1. ... c5 to the opening move which in and out of itself is not a hypermodern move. In fact this is a very legitimate move because it prevents white from establishing a pawn on d4 which is white's best shot in the opening. If white is stubborn enough to play 2. c3 ( Alapin variation ) in order to achieve a pawn on d4 anyway this comes at a price: white's development slows down and becomes unnatural - black can now capitalize on the fact that Nc3 is no longer possible and can deliver counter punches in the form of 2. ... Nf6 or 2. ... d5. While the Sicilian is not a hypermodern defense and Svidler made pawn moves in the center it was the spirit of hypermodernism which was hovering over his game. The bizarr hpyermodern orchestra of the fianchettoed dark square bishop, the queen on a5 and the retreated knight on d7 were all designed to undermine from the flanks Adams' center pawn which ultimately they did but at what cost?
In the second game of the tie-break between Svidler and Adams an outright hypermodern opening was chosen by white which Adams punished in style.
Why was Adams able to win this tie-break game and lost to Svidler in the main game against the same opening? The answer is easy: in the second game Adams responded to 1. g3 with 1. ... d5 instead of 1. ... e4 which is black's strongest plan ( mirroring white's strongest plan of 1. d4 ).
In the game he lost Adams was the side to make bizarr and unnatural moves:
Very interesting games for analysis. The opening for black in your third example looks good for black according to the database I looked at, black has won 44.8% of the games after 4. ... e4 against 20.9% for white.
I wouldn't say black made bizarre and unnatural moves, but rather that he got outplayed by white for the domination of the centre. Black is holding on to its e-pawn for too long. The knight on a6 on move 8 looks awkwardly placed, but it is on it's way to the b4 square. I don't see a better move for black there. He does make a mistake on move 13, trading of his dark squared bishop. Better would be:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_%28fallacy%29
Opening research of TCEC games ( TCEC is the site where top engines regularly compete on high end hardware for the unofficial engine world champion title ):
Statistics of games played between 2500+ humans ( if you visit the link set the filter to 2500+ in order to reproduce the below image ):
The 'success' of hypermodern theory is nowhere to be seen in these statistics.
That's why at the top level masters don't win with the Grunfeld, the KID, or the Nimzo Indian. Right?
Opening research of TCEC games ( TCEC is the site where top engines regularly compete on high end hardware for the unofficial engine world champion title ):
Statistics of games played between 2500+ humans ( if you visit the link set the filter to 2500+ in order to reproduce the below image ):
The 'success' of hypermodern theory is nowhere to be seen in these statistics.
1.g3 has just a 3.6% lower win rate for white than 1.e4. I don't like how drawish everything is though =(
Well, if statistics of TWO, FOUR, and SIX games are enough for you to draw any conclusions, I don't think there is much to discuss.
I have said repeatedly that I don't draw my conclusions based on statistics. What I propose here is based on hard learned experience and evidence gathered from correspondence chess games played at several different sites. I don't need any engine games to prove that 1. b3, 1. g3 are weak moves and 1. g4 is a terrible move. It is only an interesting thing that what little number of games there were played with these opening moves just fit my description.
What is significant is the statistics regarding the main four opening moves namely 1. d4, 1. e4, 1. c4 and 1. Nf3. These statistics are very telling.
If you want to win with white you should either play 1. d4 or 1. e4.
If you insist on making an inferior move choose 1. c4 rather than 1. Nf3.