E4, D4 or C4?

Not really.

I think it is an observation which I have noticed.

You aren't a titled player if you're 2200. (Unless you count meaningless nonsense titles like candidate master or some other stuff like that.) 2300 FIDE is just a very strong club player in the UK, let alone 2200.

Also you're wrong on another count and come to think, I've seen that list before. The person who compiled the list doesn't even understand basic English, let alone having no understanding of chess.

It doesn't take too much intelligence to determine that someone who took up playing chess yesterday is a beginner. Then when they know a little about it, they're a novice. How the **** is it even possible to be a seasoned beginner? Or for that matter, if you apply a brain cell to the problem and manage to get it the right way round, a "seasoned novice"? That's for the fairies.

Novices are best seasoned with salt and herbs and rubbed with butter.

Should they also be beaten severely with a rolling pin or a tenderising hammer?

e4

The list compiled was made by me.

I didn’t copy the above list from any other person.

I do find it surprising that you say you have seen it before.

In addition, A person who took up chess yesterday wouldn’t be called a Beginner.

They would be considered Novice or a Provincial Player.

Their status would be undefined.
(To be determined by larger amount of games)

A Novice Player could potentially jump from Novice to Intermediate depending on how talented they are and how fast they pick up the game.

It is possible for a Chess player to never be called a Beginner.

A Chess Player with Natural Talent could excel past beginner ranks right into Intermediate.

The above is very common with Children more so vs. Adults.

Similar things also happen in Schools.
Some kids go to 4th grade.
Other kids are so advanced they skip 4th grade and go into 5th grade.

My definition of a titled player is a player with a title. Some titles are worth more than others, but all of them are worth more than no title.

Don't forget to consider 1) Nf3.
Its very solid.
If you decide to play it - you don't have to get 'bamboozled' into the so-called 'Reti' opening - which 1) Nf3 is often misguidedly called.
Its a Reti if the game continues after Nf3 with d5 and white 'Robotically' answers d5 with c4.
Which is unnecessary.
d4 on move 2 is completely playable instead. So is 2) e3. And other moves.
Is 1) Nf3 'hard to play'?
Your knight prevents e5 by black. It prepares castling. It develops a piece.
Your knight would almost always be going to f3 anyway - and soon.
The thing I like the most about 1) Nf3 is that its taking your opponent out of 90% or more of his 'book'.
Nf3 is so good - that black might do it too. Nf6.
Asking his opponent: "Okay I agree that knights are good. But now what? What do you want to do? No Reti? How about you play d4 Now ?"
I have long thought that d4 is objectively the best and most central move for white to begin a game with. But it collides with a lot of black's preparation. So does e4.
Nf3 - not as much. Not nearly.

I. Nf3 is indeed considered the strongest opening move by some authorities. It's a way of getting into the English Opening while preventing black's strongest reply, which is often thought to be 1. e5.

The best e4 italian

I've been talking tO someone who thinks that anyone who took up chess yesterday isn't a beginner, who claims he invented a very bad set of definitions that I've seen before and who claims that seasoned beginners exist.

Zillions of people will recommend e4.
Some will say d4 is better.
A few will suggest c4.
Almost nobody will suggest NF3 - which is very solid.
/////////////////////////
But try this:
At an early stage in your chess - you're not committed to any particular opening.
Because you haven't invested a lot of time yet.
So try out all four moves on your first move.
Equally. From game to game.
The actual action will depend partly on how your opponent responds.
Find out.
Experiment.
Then after hours or days or weeks ... review the experience. Your way.