Contemplating switching from 1 e4 to 1 d4.

no mate delayed wing gambit much better then origiginal wing gambit

indeed. I switched from 1. e4 to 1. d4 what seems like eons ago as a practical decision. In fact, I enjoy playing KP openings alot as white but when I was playing competitively I didn't like playing against systems I played when on defense (I play the Sicilian Najdorf & CK) which some opponents used do when scouting me. I dunno, it's like a right-handed boxer becomes a southpaw because the jab is stronger and more effective from that stance. it's like I already have a great feeling for KP positions as white that learning QP openings expands my knowledge alot more. I like playing chess for experience, while winning is always awesome, I learn alot more when I lose. Anyways, playin's always the thing with me, everything else is just icing✌🏽

if you just want to reach a playable middlegame and avoid tactical tricks for the most part, then switching to 1 d4 can do that. but personally i think one has to be strong enough to at least survive the tactical fights in the open games with either color before trying to go for the closed games, which anyway are not devoid of tactical fights. one of the points i think is that the strategy is relatively straightforward in the open and semi open games, so for the most part you are just fighting tactically, and by doing so you are supposed to get better at this. once you get to the closed games neither tactics or strategy will come by easily and if you are at least tactically strong enough then you just need to build up on strategic thinking.

MichalMalkowski, I spent a long time suspecting d4 was better for my style, but reluctant to start, having played only e4 for so many years.  The only way is to try it for a while and see how the games go.  Initially, you might make some "beginner" mistakes.  But give it at least like 50 games to see how the general flavor goes.

To overgeneralize, d4 openings give kind of a slower build and/or more positional game compared to e4.  If that's the style you prefer, then it's important to try it and assess.  You can always go back to e4 if you need!

EDIT: I re-read your original post and saw your main motivation is to avoid the Sicilian Defense.  Nevertheless, I'd still suggest giving d4 a try from a style perspective!

Again, thank You for your answers. I did not expect so many.

The idea of a switch is not only about open sicilian. Open sicilian is just an extreme example of problem.

When i was a total beginer, i constantly heard: tactics, tactics, tactics. And i listened, have done thousends of exercises, and it indeed helped a lot. 

So tactics was my strongest point, and it coupled with what impressed and fascinate me most in chess - the ability of  a player to sacrifice a piece and perform an attack. I was in love with (seemingly) simple games of Morphy, who played just like that - development, centralisation, sacrifice, attack, mate. I have read a big book on attacking methods in chess. 

So I was "attacking player", in that sense, that tactics and attack were the only fields where my skills where  above zero.

However, as i grew as i player and have conducted many mating attacks - some succesful some not - i have discovered that attack oriented play is not neceserily the best one. It is great that you can outcount your opponents, but even better if you don't have to. My endgame skill and strategical understanding have finally went up, and so i noticed, that I have easier time dealaing as black with 1.d4, then i have with with 1. e4. That those quiet lines, are actually simpler.  They seem to rely more on ideas and principles, rather then on concrete specifics that has to be counted. Open Sicilian seems to be a pinacle of "concrete specifics" kind of opening, where there are little principles, but a lot of tactics.

Still, i have arleady decided to go through the pain, and learn open sicilian. It has started to fascinate me just as attacking chess used to.

Just my 2 cents, but the sicilian has vast strategic depth. There are many lines that are quite tactical, but that is usually a choice white gets to make.  That is why I think the sicilian is easier from the white side.  If you want a more strategic approach look at how certain gms play it (karpov for example).

For example, this was karpovs line against the najdorf.  White can play on all sides of the board by playing against the black king, playing on the weak d5 square after black plays e5, pushing his a pawn and playing on the weakened queen side squares etc.  This is what I play as well, I find it more fun than hoping I remember some long string of nearly forced moves. Hope this helps. 

I don't think it's very important to be honest. Both e4 and d4 are valid. I'm not sure what you mean by open Sicilian being the only serious go, there seem to be a slew of openings played at the highest levels without issue. You should probably play games on chess.com, show your losses and tight games, and look for specific thoughts on those. Or at least show the games you play elsewhere, etc. The opening to choose seems to be very overrated, it means next to nothing, as long as you pick something reasonable, you'll be fine. If you find you understand one opening's theory much better than another's, you can try that opening and see how it goes. The work you put into the opening means more than the opening you want to work. 

@catmaster0

Ok, after the last post i have played a game  against a player of a similar rating. 60 min of a tight open sicilian.  I got a clear advantage, wasted it, went for complications and managed to save a draw. I lost adventage, because i could not count the consequences of the right move far enough, so in spite of finding it, I instead played something much weaker .

As for " the only serouos go" - it is the tip i keep hearing just as beginers hear "tactics, tactcs, tactics". As I read discussions here, the strongest users recomend playing open sicilian. An online coach ( Piotr Kaczorowski) whom i consider my oracle, says it too, and ads that playing anti-sicilians ( or any other side lines anywhere) impedes chess improvement.

It seems your knight wasn't in as bad a spot as you thought, you may have undervalued it. In fact, one of the better responses to the bishop move they made right after your move was to move your knight back, lol. Taking their bishop afterwards did not seem to end up doing you any favors, especially when it encouraged you to drop a pawn. For all the theory you speak of, what gave your opponent the lead was just hanging material. You didn't notice that your e4 pawn was under attack yet undefended and so lost it for free. You managing to get your opponent to accept a draw in a winning position was a nifty ending, lol. 

Missing a best move in a tricky position can happen in any opening, as can giving away material. So I wouldn't change your opening on just this rationale. I don't think there is anything wrong with switching to d4 if you want to try it out, and it probably will give you another perspective on the game, but you will probably run into similar problems at some point. 

Well, the engine supports my evaluation, it was something like -3,05. The  opponent schould not have accepted.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. You got the opponent to accept a draw in a winning position. They had the upper hand and still took it, lol. A nifty way to close the game.