Is d4 better than e4

I like 1e4 because I can castle quicker. At the same time I play 1d4 d5 2c4 dxc4 3e4 and I get a pawn centre.

And if you adjust for the fact that these beginners are playing e4 against other beginners that can't defend worth a sh*t?

Now you are back to the original percentage!

1.d4 is stronger than 1.e4.

Uhm, what's faster than 1.Nf3, 2.g3, 3.Bg2, 4.O-O?  So no, 1.e4 doesn't lead to quicker castling.  The above 4 moves are just as fast as 1.e4, 2.Nf3, 3.Bb5, and 4.O-O

Uhm, NewInChess.com only includes high class games - not the BS you see in the games on here.  Hence why that DB is smaller (about 1.7 Million today) than most other DBs (5 Million+).

And ya know what?  Even the scrubs can't win with 1.e4.  In 2006 thru 2007, I played 227 tournament games, roughly half of them as Black.  Statistically (valid in this case, sample size greater than 30), I scored 68% with Black in that 2-year stretch (mid-40s as White playing junk like 1.Nc3 then), and an even better 82% against 1.e4??

Face the facts.  1.e4 SUX!

Yes, a high rated player can't score easily against 1. d4, Nf3, Nc3, c4. But to play 1. e4 against high rated player is like you kick an elephant in the leg.

I don't know... d4 annoys me because it seems to greatly slow down the game.

Accurate play with 1.e4 can lead to a stronger opening advantage than 1.d4 I think, due to the attacking nature of sharp king pawn play.  I enjoy playing queen pawn openings just as much as king pawn though, depends what mood I'm in.  

Accurate play AGAINST 1.e4 can lead to easier equality than accurate play against 1.d4.  1.e4 leads to more early traps and a quicker "attempt" at the King, but if Black knows what he's doing, White's attack is useless.  You can't just go throwing a couple of pieces at the king with their heads chopped off and expect them to do anything.  You need the whole army.

I speak with 17 years tournament experience (Over the board).  Younger players (i.e. Teenagers) and lower rated players tend to favor 1.e4.  The teens don't have the patience to play a long, drawn out game.  They get restless, irritable, bored, and they start making mistakes, ESPECIALLY in endgames.  Lower rated players (i.e. Your 50-year old man that never studied, just played for 10 years) don't have the endurance to go 60 moves without making small errors, typically positional in nature, because they barely understand the concept of a long term plan or weaknesses.  They might see 2 or 3 moves ahead, and then just say "ok, let's see what happens and I'll figure out the rest then".  Just a little logic in that Quick attacks occur more often with 1.e4 combined with the law of probability that you are more likely to make 20 good moves in a row than you are 50 good moves in a row explains why you see e4 a lot on the lower boards.

1.d4, 1.c4, and 1.Nf3 require a certain level of maturity.  Something most lower-rated and younger chess players don't have.  After 20 moves, assuming you are White, you are happy with the small advantage.  After move 20, Fritz says it's +0.45, you're loving life!  Of course, the rare few cases that it's +2.50 you surely won't object to.  You understand the small advantages that get you that +0.45 assessment, like Black's weak c5 square, Black's backwards c6 pawn, and the Good Knight vs Black's Bad Light-Squared Bishop.  None of these things are going to blow Black out of the water, but the position for Black may very well already be lost, but a lost position that requires 35 more moves by White to execute (once again, that whole concept of the slower the attack, the more room there is to error).

So which is better for White?  Having a huge advantage 1 game out of every 10, and a dead equal position the other 9?  Or having these small advantages that you can achieve as White all 10 times, but they all require a good amount of work to convert them?  I'll take the small advantage every time over gambling just to get a larger advantage occasionally and otherwise just getting nothing to show for the fact that you went first! 

Amongst strong players both should be equal.

I like d4 because my pawn is protected and I can get 2 center pawns with 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 attacking the c4 pawn with the bishop. After that I would move my knights out and push up the pawns to the 5-6th rank if I can, gaining space.

The stats for e4 also include scrubs.  d4 is better by test and the very best opening is 1. d4  d5  2. c4

The Queen's Gambit truly is the best opening in all of chess.

I'll bet if you did a survey of "What to you is the best opening in all of chess?" and specifically defined the question such that your response implies that you'd be more than willing to play the opening you named from EITHER SIDE!  In other words, BS like "Oh, I love to smash the Dragon, I'm a Dragon Slayer" isn't the point of the question.  Also, if you think about it, even if it's some unorthodox line, no matter how you set up your repertoire, there will be one opening you have to be willing to play as both Black and White!  What opening would that be that you'd be more than happy to play from both sides?  For me, that surely is the Queen's Gambit.

Thrillerfan, you act as if positional play is impossible after 1. e4.  

I think I would rather answer the Closed Ruy Lopez. I started playing 1. d4 recently because there seems to be more playable sidelines. For instance I play the Accelerated Averbak 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Bg5 against the King's Indian. I am not required to learn the Sicilian Dragon, which is heavily focused on the Yugoslav attack or any other open Sicilian. 1. d4 for me, but only because it is more fitting due to the amount of time I have to devote to chess and my particular personality. 

berliner was right!

well... d4 better than e4? not by any significant margin at scrub level (ie, all of us)
so masters score 2% extra with d4! congratulations to them, rather worry about your personal style, and if you legitimately like 1 d4 then go for it.

I would also vote for RL, I play Tarrasch against 1.d4 but on white side I prefer exchange QGD. RL is the only opening where I like same lines with both black and white. The other would be French Advanced but with 1.d4 I have quite different preferences depending on colour

How is this any different from the countless bishop vs. knight threads? Just as a knight may turn out better than the "objectively" better bishop, 1.e4 may be more compatible with your play than the statistically better 1.d4.

At chesstempo, e4 has a better performance rating in 2700+ vs 2700+ and 2600+ vs 2600+ games, and d4 has a better performance rating for the 3 next rating categories (I'm not going to compare the "all games" category, since there's plenty of garbage there), with the win/loss percentages matching. The biggest difference in performance ratings is 20 points, so these statistics show the already-known fact that both are good. Other moves, particularly Nf3 and c4, do well too.

NO!  Actually, I can name at least two dozen openings with a higher draw ratio.  Oh, and look at how many are KP Openings!

Here's a resource, just so you know I'm not making up the numbers.

http://www.becomeawordgameexpert.com/stats.htm

Queen's Gambit is 36% Draw Ratio.  Not to mention, the Classical Declined Main Line is 57%, which can be avoided by both sides (Exchange or 7.Qc2 for White, Tartakower, Lasker, Tarrasch, Slav, Semi-Slav for Black), therefore making it even LOWER!  Next highest is the Meran at 40%, and many are below 30%.  These all have above 36%:

- Petroff w/ 3.Nxe5 d6 - 44%
- Exchange French - 43%
- Bogo-Indian Defense - 42%
- Petroff w/ 3.Nxd5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 - 41%
- Nimzo-Indian w/ 4.Qc2 - 41%
- Accel Dragon, Maroczy Bind - 41%
- Classical Grunfeld (4.Bf4) - 40%
- Caro-Kann, Classical with 4...Bf5 - 40%
- Nimzo-Indian w/ 4.Nf3 - 39%
- Petroff Defense - 39%
- Nimzo-Indian w/ 4.e3 c5 5.Ne2 - 38%
- Grunfeld as a Whole - 37% (HIGHER THAN THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT)
- Exchange Grunfeld - 37%
- Nimzo-Indian w/ 4.e3 - 37%
- Reti Opening - 37%

Not to mention EVERY variation of the QID is above (42% overall) along with the Breyer, Chigorin, Berlin, Rio de Janiero, Keres Attack, Open Variation, and Exchange Variations are also all above 36%.

So THERE!  The QGD is NOT DRAWISH!  Oh, and by the way, aren't the Ruy Lopez, Petroff, Caro-Kann, French, and Accelerated Dragon all KING PAWN OPENINGS?  And isn't the Grunfeld supposed to be one of Black's most agressive against d4?

I rest my case your honor!