While I know that 25 is a small sample size, I find it hard to believe that twice as many people play 1. b4 than 1. d4, based on completely random pairings.
The other objections about having more resources in 1. e4 openings doesn't sound right. There are plenty of books, database results and tactics from closed games. I personally don't play 1. e4 just because of the reasons you cited. I play it for other reasons.
Probably because of the rating.
Till like 1700 Fide rating d4 isn´t played that much.
Can´t say much about correspondance chess though. I don´t play it that much, I just can´t concentrate with it.
Wouter, that's definitely not true. When I go to OTB tournaments, I see 1100s and 1200s busting out 30 moves of Catalan and King's Indian theory without understanding a single move of it. Low level players play 1. d4 and other closed games (Caro-Kann, Chigorin Ruy Lopez, etc.) because they like to think of themselves as "positional" when in reality they play it because they're afraid of tactics/they want to look like they know more than they do.
your speaking for the people you saw at a OTB tourney that doesn't apply to all 1100 and 1200 who do play 1.e4. Wouter is corrct when I see 1700+ and not only in my home town or state they play and praise 1.d4. Most beginners are taught to play 1.e4 so it will be seen more at lower levels and always will be. As for your other post how can you say 1.e4 has more theory while in that same post you said 1.d4 has more transpositions which with each opening has it's own set of theory. Your obviously a 1.e4 fan but but don't say it like it's the more advance option cause it's the exact opposite in today's world.
I think the simple reason of playing e4 is it's simplicity & much less variations / transposotions as compaired to d4.
When I started playing, I would play 1.d4 just because it was easy to get a decent attacking formation without worrying too much about dropping my center pawn. Then I switched to 1.e4 because I heard it was better for your chess development. Now I just like 1.e4. To us e4 players, 'the slav' sounds like a medieval torture device.
Wouter, that's definitely not true. When I go to OTB tournaments, I see 1100s and 1200s busting out 30 moves of Catalan and King's Indian theory without understanding a single move of it. Low level players play 1. d4 and other closed games (Caro-Kann, Chigorin Ruy Lopez, etc.) because they like to think of themselves as "positional" when in reality they play it because they're afraid of tactics/they want to look like they know more than they do.
your speaking for the people you saw at a OTB tourney that doesn't apply to all 1100 and 1200 who do play 1.e4. Wouter is corrct when I see 1700+ and not only in my home town or state they play and praise 1.d4. Most beginners are taught to play 1.e4 so it will be seen more at lower levels and always will be. As for your other post how can you say 1.e4 has more theory while in that same post you said 1.d4 has more transpositions which with each opening has it's own set of theory. Your obviously a 1.e4 fan but but don't say it like it's the more advance option cause it's the exact opposite in today's world.
You make a number of ridiculous assumptions in your post.
I say that 1. e4 has more theory because that's a fact, not an opinion. Go look in MCO and see how many pages are dedicated to the Sicilian alone and tell me that 1. d4 has more theory than 1. e4.
I did not say or insinuate that 1. e4 is more advanced than 1. d4; in fact, I prefer the latter! All I said was that (from what I've seen) low rated players in my area tend to imitate grandmasters and pull out Catalans and Slavs that they don't understand even on a basic level where as high rated players play what they want to play, whether it is e4 or d4 or whatever. It's also very childish to assume the opposite is true just because it is "in style" at the top levels at the moment. If there were time machines, I'd pay good money to see you go back in time and tell Fischer that 1. d4 is more advanced than the "simplistic" 1. e4.
Transpositions make it so that an opening has less theory, not more! If I solve a math problem three different ways that all reach the same conclusion, is that more or less complicated than solving 3 different math problems with 3 complex solutions?
My favorite part of your post is that you reference something that I said referring to my area, denounced it as a shallow generalization, and then proceeded to make a shallow generalization that I did not make with my post in your post!
"You're speaking for the people you saw at an OTB tourney that doesn't apply to all 1100 and 1200 who do play 1. e4." Yes, I know that. All I was saying is that d4 is still played at low levels. That doesn't mean that no one plays 1. e4 and I clearly wasn't saying that.
"I see 1700+ and they play and praise 1.d4."
You're making the exact generalization that you falsely said that I was making. Also, why should it matter if they praise (1. d4) [I put 1. d4 in parentheses so it didn't look like I was slapping a question mark on it]? If I vehemently claim the strength of some advanced physics theory as a high school physics student, would any renowned physicist care?
1st off I would not tell Fischer this cause I don't want to get slapped. 2nd great point's in the post you said everything well mannered and presented your idea without childish remarks as most do on this site and for that hats off to you. 3rd your right I'm wrong but besides that MCO book you talked about if you search theory as a whole 1.d4 does have more RICHER theory presented in it self. I think 1.e4 has more theory on it soley because way back in the day like morphy and them you were literrally considered unsports manly to some to not play a aggressive go for broke opening like what 1.e4 openings offer. Paulson himself said people in that era didn't know how to defend properly because of this idea to them that they feel they must attack all the time.
P.S. go up to Kasparov and tell him you think 1.e4 is more advanced and 1.d4 is just in style and that's all lol
Try looking in the Game Explorer here to get a REAL CLUE about how often 1.d4 is played compared to any other opening.
25 games isn't just a "small sample" it's totally meaningless when you check out the figures in the Game Explorer
Here is another meaningful clue to answer your question with http://www.shredderchess.com/online-chess/online-databases/opening-database.html
"You're speaking for the people you saw at an OTB tourney that doesn't apply to all 1100 and 1200 who do play 1. e4." Yes, I know that. All I was saying is that d4 is still played at low levels. That doesn't mean that no one plays 1. e4 and I clearly wasn't saying that.
In general 1. e4 is more played. And a few d5 here and there indeed.
...25 games isn't just a "small sample" it's totally meaningless when you check out the figures in the Game Explorer...
In the last few OTB events I played in, I faced only 1. d4 and other closed games. If I were to play 25 OTB games as Black, I would expect to play at least 10 to 15 1. d4s. But here, I just don't see it.
When I started playing, I would play 1.d4 just because it was easy to get a decent attacking formation without worrying too much about dropping my center pawn. Then I switched to 1.e4 because I heard it was better for your chess development. Now I just like 1.e4. To us e4 players, 'the slav' sounds like a medieval torture device.
Seconded.
In my experience here when I play black, 38.1% play d4. When I play white, 56.9% are d4 
. Those numbers are skewed somewhat since I have been playing mostly tournaments in openings I like to play, so I get a lot more 1. e4 played by and against me due to that (Sicilian tournaments).
I can't say how many people here actually play that in normal challenges though.
It really depends on what sample you take. Altogether, though, I have found that e4 is much more popular than d4 at amateur levels, especially at scholastic competitions where most of the kids have had at least a little chess instruction. On chess.com correspondance, the story has been basically the same, though I find that on live chess people don't actually play e4 that often, but instead play rather eccentric versions of d4 openings. Personally, I play d4 not so much to avoid tactics as to avoid the Sicilian and other defenses to e4. Perhaps it is just laziness, but I don't really fancy learning all the theory needed to play effectively against the Sicilian.
It really depends on what sample you take. Altogether, though, I have found that e4 is much more popular than d4 at amateur levels, especially at scholastic competitions where most of the kids have had at least a little chess instruction. On chess.com correspondance, the story has been basically the same, though I find that on live chess people don't actually play e4 that often, but instead play rather eccentric versions of d4 openings. Personally, I play d4 not so much to avoid tactics as to avoid the Sicilian and other defenses to e4. Perhaps it is just laziness, but I don't really fancy learning all the theory needed to play effectively against the Sicilian.
That´s why I play the dutch against d4 :D. So all the people avoding tactics and theory are getting tactics and theory.
Why is there this rampant misconception that 1.d4 players hate tactics and that d4 is so boring and everything. When ppl play stuff like the Colle or London, yes that can be true to some extent.
But for QG and hardcore 1.d4/2.c4 players, the play can get quite sharp and aggressive. Have you seen the Botvinnik, Moscow, and Shirov-Shabalov Gambit Variations of the Semi-Slav?? And the Bayonet Attack in the KID? Look at how Topalov plays 1.d4....
Personally I don't play 1.d4 to avoid the Sicilian or tactics. I play it since I like the positions I get out of the opening.
And 1.d4/2.c4 is quite flexible. You can be aggressive and more tactical when your opponent is afraid of agression, and you can play a more positional game against opponents that hate positional chess.
@Wouter
What variation of the Dutch do you play? To me, both the Stonewall and Leningrad are really positional...
The book Gambit Play by Angus Dunnington is full of games that start with 1. d4 that show how super-tactical play can erupt out of these "quiet" openings.
I used to play the Classical Dutch, and may yet take up the cause again. 
Yeah, but the problem with the Dutch is they take you to a coffeehouse and next thing you know you are staggering out on to the street 7 hours later with no money and a permanent cheesey grin on your face.
mmmmmmmmmmm Dutch cheese!
Wouter, that's definitely not true. When I go to OTB tournaments, I see 1100s and 1200s busting out 30 moves of Catalan and King's Indian theory without understanding a single move of it. Low level players play 1. d4 and other closed games (Caro-Kann, Chigorin Ruy Lopez, etc.) because they like to think of themselves as "positional" when in reality they play it because they're afraid of tactics/they want to look like they know more than they do.
who do you have in mind? peter klier? LOL
Having just found out that I could look up my personal statistics on Game Explorer, I looked at my results as Black and saw that of the 25 games as Black, I have only faced 1.d4 once. Yet, whenever the subject of what opening move is "better," the d4 fans all chime in. I find it hard to believe that only 4% of White players play 1. d4. What's with this?