I promise not to study it THOROUGHLY guys ;)

generally which is the best first move e4 or e5

Yes.

Yesterday, both of my games began 1.e4. I won both. Today, both began 1.d4. I won with Black and lost with White.

I do better with e4 over d4. Open tactical more likely with e4. Closed positional more likey with d4.

Yeah, but if you are a skilled player you can open up the game or close it more when you desire (sometimes anyway), or so I am told.

Should I start a new thread called

Learning 1.d4 d5 thoroughly

Somtimes is the key word.

For once, I agree with ChickenMonster. 

I play 1.d4 far more often than I play 1.e4. I teach 1.e4 to my students though, because in order to play closed positions effectively, you need to know when and how to open up the position! 

There are few positions that are truly fully closed. For instance, one of the main strategic struggles of the Nimzo-Indian is for White to play e4 and open up the center at the right moment while Black strives for counterplay.

You don't get away from tactics by playing 1.d4. I think it was Petrosian who likened 1.d4 to someone who serves left-handed in tennis. It's just a different spin on the same game.

But of course, it's ridiculous to claim to want to learn to play 1.e4 thorougly and a few weeks later want to learn 1.d4 thoroughly. 

It has been three weeks. Out of curosity what have you done to learn 1. e4 e5? Do you have a line against the Spanish, Italian, Scotch, Four Knights, and Ponzini? Not to mention the Russian game and the Philidor. What lines or positions are giving you problems? What lines or positions do you like?

My guess is that he's done nothing but more lip flapping the last 3 weeks . 

Save the left-handed serves for certain strategic moments since the opponent would acclimate if done earlier. 

No one plays 1.d4 to avoid tactics but rather because they're in the mood for the kind of imbalances 1.d4 brings, wants to avoid the Sicilian and Berlin Defense or specific preperation against an opponent. 

If he learns 1.e4 thoroughly then he'll have serious gaps against 1.d4.  As white just setup a Torre attack and play c3 or c4  or even not move the pawn depending on the kind of position you'll end up in.  As black the Queen's Indian will offer you experience with imbalances and plans you'll find against other systems like 1.Nf3 or 1.c4.

You agree with me? Are you taking cat nip? Perhaps I am hallucinating. I did not go to sleep last night. Not at all.

Let's take out the word "thoroughly." OK, I retract that word.

I don't want to get away from tactics. I want to improve my tactics. I think I am horrible at them now but may have some potential if I work hard at them. I started play 1.e4. I switched to 1.d4. Now I have decided I should play both (not in the same game ). A friend and former colleague of mine who is trying to attain his Candidate Master (got up to 2150 USCF then his marriage just ended and he dropped down) told me Chicken, you will be doing yourself a disservice if you don't play some 1.e4 along with 1.d4 (in the long-run). I now am going to play 1.d4, say, 70% of the time, 1.e4 say 20%, and 1.c4 10%. Eventually I'll try 1.Nf3...once I get a lot better. I think that's reasonable...and I find it more challenging and interesting to switch (no swith-hitter remarks necessary).

I notice my games open up with 1.d4 quite often. I'll throw in the Tromp or Torre once in a while in addition to my QG.

I have been rapdily trying to get my games down to a reasonable number. I also, I play 1...e5 to 1.e4 and I started with a few things...for example, the Ponziani...starting slowly. I have also been playing in a Ruy Lopez tourney. Additionally, I tried the Cordel and liked it.

Of the openings you mentioned, I have solid lines against the Spanish, Italian, Scotch, and Four Knights. I need to find lines for the Ponz, Phil, and Russian though. I can also handle the King's Gambit no problem, etc.

I don't have enough experience to intelligently answer what I like yet. Maybe the Berlin or Chigorin or...etc....not sure yet...

e6. You can reach out more squares.

Did you say "lip fattening?" I beginning to consider that.

I have lines for Tromp as White, and for Torre and Tromp as Black. I need lines for Torre as White.

As Black I do Nimzo or Bogo (haven't really tried QID, just Bogo).

Also, I have no idea what to do when opening with 1.e4 against the Sicilian Defense. I have studied some 1.e4 c5 2.b3 games. Not hard to learn. I think I should try the Open Sicilian sometimes too (even though I will get creamed).

I steer clear of double e-pawn openings.  To much to learn, to much to study, to much to remember, to much work. 

Of course, one could make that argument about the entire game of chess.

What do you do instead, specifically?

Now I want to know what line you have against the scotch that you learned how to play in three weeks.

I thought you were talking about the liquor!

Wait let me consult with my notes.....now wait a second, all I said was I have a line against it. I never said "I learned how to play" it. I don't know what you mean by that. I just have a line that I have written down that I can use against it. I have been told not to learn things thoroughly.

You have a rating of 1886 and you don't have a line against the Scotch? Come on!

What? You have to make moves like Nc6, Nf6, Bc5/e7 d5/d6 etc. These moves are the most natural in the world. Of course, move orders are sometimes important against certain gambits, (many gambits can be simply declined and you can play chess, for example Evans gambit with the simple Bb6) but you can learn them.

The only serious try for white after e4-e5 Nf3 Nc6 is The ruy lopez, you have many options against that, everything else is just easy equality for black. Of course you should know the plans, but that is true for any opening. 

I think there is more theory that you have to know in any single open sicilian line than in the whole e4-e5.