e4 vs. d4

Does anybody think playing d4 as white in the opening is so much better than e4?

I'm no chess expert but I'm finding e4 a beginner's opening, namely because they want to get straight into the Ruy Lopez or the Italian game that everybody knows, I feel confident to say it's the only game they're used to.  

If I'm white, I also think the Reti is just as good as d4 because of the available transformations you can morph into depending on how your opponent responds.

What's your opinion?

I think that 1. e4 and 1. d4 are approximately equally good. However, as is obvious, the type of positions which arise tend to be somewhat different. The 'margins' are wider with 1. d4 - there's more chance for white to play a few inaccuracies and not be worse. With 1. e4 it's easier for white to play a few inaccuracies and end up worse. 

why not play both?

Can you play two pawn moves in one go? I didn't know! Is that some chess variant like 960 or something? 

I like the logical evolution of the d4 game, trying to force your way down the c-file or get a nice centre. e4 has a tendency to go more haywire.  

d4 is also usually less dependant on exact move orders. The sad irony for the "swashbucking" chess player type is that those games are much more often won on theory than games like most of d4.  

The reason why I like d4 as an opening for white is that the Colle System is very effective, especially if they castle kingside. It also gives rise to the London System but like I said, if you play the Reti it gives you so many options on how you would like continue.

Playing e4 is a bit limited and can get messy quickly.

well you just need to try to understand what I said to work out what I meant chyss

I did. I carefully examined your sentence, and considered the context, including the thread in which it appears. It's clear that you mean to say that the solution is to play both at once. 

So, my questions still stand unanswered. Can you play two pawn moves in one go? I didn't know! Is that some chess variant like 960 or something? 

well you simply misunderstood then

you can variate in the openings you play, and as result you will be harder to predict

So, do you mean that in some games you should play 1. e4 and in other games you should play 1. d4.  ?

If that's what you mean, then I think it was reasonable for me not to understand as it doesn't really answer the question. I assumed that you were trying to answer the question posed in by the OP. 

no, it does answer the question, as there is no answer

yes, e4 is counted as a beginner opening because so many beginners play it, however that does not make it any less good.

d4 is also good, as it is sound such as e4 is

that way if you play both openings, you will understand that there is no better opening, except that your playing style may variate which you prefer

If there is no answer to the question then you can't have answered the question. It seems you didn't really think that through. 

And you are misusing the word 'variate'. 'Variate' is a mathematical term used particularly in statistics I believe. 

man you're annoying. go play outside.

man you're rubbish at chess. go play checkers. 

Being myself an intermediate level player with loads of experience, I do prefer d4. Bu-ut will play e4 on occasion. I personally consider the Colle alittle too passive. The QGD vs any defence is perfectly fine btw. Also being Mainstream also prepares you for stronger opponents that love to smash Londons. No offense, of course.

As I play a variety of Stonewall Attacks, Colles, Torres myself! Heh.

OH. Chyss~ you DID obviously misunderstand what the previous poster was saying...namely, "why don't you play both e4 & d4?" Independantly, NOT together. Heh. Its pretty funny how you're bashing him on your slight inaccurate misunderstanding instead of simply saying, "I goofed!"

8)

No. He misexplained. Meaning is not carried  by intention alone.

The older and wiser local players tell me to concentrate on just a few openings, and learn them so well you could play them asleep, which is exactly what I do when I sign up for tourneys at 11PM here. I can't say I do well. I've yet to podium, try as I might.

So, I've learned d4 and specifically the QG. Seems to work for me.

I also am learning the French against e4 and the (gasp) classical Dutch against d4. I've been playing them both a lot, and I feel like I'm just scratching the service with both of them.

BTW, the classical Dutch is a hoot, for those unfamiliar with it. It's caveman chess, and when it works it's wonderful to see the opposition get crushed, their women weeping in lamtentation.

OTOH, I've had the same defense blow up in my face. My women don't listen to my lamentation. They tell me to shut up and be quiet.

If you was to sololy look at just the move 1.e4 and compare it to any other possible first move's. You would see it is the best move.

The reason why is becuase it fights for the most square's. Which is all chess is a fight for the most squares in order to checkmate the opponents king .

1.d4 would be the second strongest move.

So the answer to your question that is factual and correct is No 1.d4 is not better than 1.e4 becuase 1.e4 is more beneficial.