e4 vs. d4 for beginners

I’ve never really understood why beginners are usually recommended to play 1. e4 instead of 1. d4. The former exposes unknowledgeable players to countless tricks and traps, while the latter is considered somewhat easier to play and generally requires less memorization. The only reason I can think of for recommending 1. e4 is that it helps sharpen tactical awareness early on by having these new players get occasionally destroyed (for character development). Any thoughts?

Because 1.e4 creates more open and tactical games where plans are more intuitive. In 1.d4 positions plans are less clear, especially for people in the 800-1500 range (like yourself!). For example, it might be hard for beginners to grasp concepts like "Minority attack on the queenside" (a plan typical in QG structures), or "improve all your pieces". For beginners, the plans in 1. e4 openings are much easier to understand. Common plans are "Attack the king" and stuff.

Also there's also the fact that is 1.e4 better. "Best by Test"- Bobby Fischer.

100% agree, 1.e4 e5 is begging to be blown off the board early at the very low levels, and its usually black who is the casualty, 1.d4 d5 slows things down and other than hitting the c pawn with the night and bishop combination, doesnt really have too many annoying traps.

There are several problems with this reasoning. The claim that 1.e4 plans are more intuitive is quite misleading since “attack the king” is a very vague goal for beginners. It also unfairly generalizes that 1.d4 positions are harder, even though the majority follow consistent, repeatable setups compared to the wide variety of 1.e4 structures. Moreover, improving your pieces is a fundamental skill that is extremely valuable for beginners to learn early on.

Have you ever thought that consistent, repeatable setups are not always the best for beginners? For example, playing openings such as the London System may help beginners in the short term, but playing in many different positions and systems via 1.e4 actually provides more benefits in the long term (getting them accustomed to new tactics and pawn structures).

Also I think you are confused. As someone who is almost 500 elo higher than you, let me say that I think you are confusing set ups and plans. Just because 1. d4 can provide you with consistent and repeatable setups/piece placement, doesn't mean the ideas aren't complex. Far from it. In fact, the Queens Gambit, Catalan, KID vs. QG, and Benoni structures have some of the most complex plans in all of chess. The only openings I can think of that start with 1.e4 and trump 1.d4 openings in complexity are Sicilian and Closed Spanish Structures. Maybe some French Structures too, but I don't know much about the French.

It’s true that playing different positions can help beginners get exposure to a wider range of tactics and pawn structures. It’s also true that many 1.d4 openings can become very complex at higher levels. However, that doesn’t really address the beginner point. Consistent setups are also arguably good early on because they reduce confusion and let players focus on basic skills like development. If a beginner wants to be safer tactically and learn general chess strategy they should play d4, if they want to learn to avoid blunders through trial and error then e4 is the way to go.