i cant imagine it having ever been used by fischer, can you give me a link to the game?
Blame your poor imagination then. Fischer never, ever played 1.b4, but he could have played it- couldn't he?
To be more exact, there are three games where Bobby played 1.b4- all from simul games back in 1964. All three of them against unrated players- I guess he would win those games even opening with 1.Nh3.
b4 should never be used in OTB master level play, they will sense positional weakness and destroy you. That said, it is great for online blitz!
So perhaps in this way you could say it's about the same as any other opening. I think with best play there's no 1st move that's bad. But I think some moves are easier to play than others.
It has to do with objective chances. With best play, white is having to draw with 1.b4. With 1.e4, black is having to draw. Both are theoretical draws, but one gives better chances than the other. Consider ICCF performances based on these chances:
1.e4 -- 55%
1.b4 -- 45%
That 10% swing of performance reveals that white is switching from trying to win, to trying not to lose. This implicit issue with offbeat openings is exactly why they are offbeat to begin with. So when a fan claims there's "nothing wrong" with 1.b4, they are choosing to disregard this important difference.
Since there is not alot of GM games with 1. b4, the statistics might be lieing. If blindly followed in my database, the best response to d4 is 1... Nh6!! with a dominating edge for black. Something like a 82% of winning with that.
But you are right, black has a comfortable equality because of the piece activity in the main line. And since most club games are decided by tactics, which obviously is mostly favours the most active side, black might have a small edge for club players. GMs might find some way to equality and outplay normal players, but they can obviously just play the mainline ruy lopez and outplay us there without having to fight for equality with white.
Problems with 1. b4?
1: Takes space on the queenside. In the first move, it's the centre which is important.
2: Gets solid, but somehow passive position. Acceptable for black, but with white you want something like King's Gambit, Open Sicilian or Queens Gambt and try to mate black.
I have showed TWO VARIANTS, together with plans and evaluations. They have never been challenged in the forum.
I repeated them already once, I don't need to repeat twice.
These variants showed that Black has an easier game than white, although White should not loose.
Now it's again switching to 'authority arguments', giving only winning/loosing percentages in OTB chess, but no variants.
In this way the discussion loses again objectivity.
Why is nobody giving analysis in some interesting sharp directions, like
1.b4 e5, 2.Bb2 f6 ?
I have not learned anything new in 341 threads !
i know its a bit of a stretch but 1b4 reminds me a bit of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JhuOicPFZY
The incomparable Mr Gligoric won a nice game here against 1. b4; a gradual building of a nice position is epitomised ...
maybe mr gligoric won because he was incomparable and playing a virtually unknown opponent
GM Mato Damjanovic was quite a strong player, and very active in the 60's.
okay, virtually unknown was a bad choice of words, but that is still like showing a game of Fischer versus me (I wish I could have played him) to disprove the opening. I looked up the players, and wasn't Gligoric 300 points higher than Damjanovic?
@falcogreen :-Instead of making yourself look foolish, why not play through the game I posted and (hopefully) appreciate the positional nuances that Mr Gligoric employed ?
You also might learn something during the process. 
GM Mato Damjanovic was quite a strong player, and very active in the 60's.
Quite right, an underrated player of his time.
So perhaps in this way you could say it's about the same as any other opening. I think with best play there's no 1st move that's bad. But I think some moves are easier to play than others.
It has to do with objective chances. With best play, white is having to draw with 1.b4. With 1.e4, black is having to draw. Both are theoretical draws, but one gives better chances than the other. Consider ICCF performances based on these chances:
1.e4 -- 55%
1.b4 -- 45%
That 10% swing of performance reveals that white is switching from trying to win, to trying not to lose. This implicit issue with offbeat openings is exactly why they are offbeat to begin with. So when a fan claims there's "nothing wrong" with 1.b4, they are choosing to disregard this important difference.
I don't think winning % by itself shows who is playing for a win or draw. That has to do with the character of the position.
But I agree with the main point you're making. I tried to cover this by saying "some moves are easier to play than others." Everything else being equal a player should have less success over time with 1.b4 than they do with 1.e4 or 1.d4. 1.b4 is playable, but more difficult.
@falcogreen :-Instead of making yourself look foolish, why not play through the game I posted and (hopefully) appreciate the positional nuances that Mr Gligoric employed ?
You also might learn something during the process.
I did look through it, then I researched the players involved. Then I posted my comment about Gligoric being by far the higher rated player. Perhaps I was misleading in my earlier comments, but I definitely agree that b4 is unsuitable for master play. See my posts more toward the beginning, they will show that I believe b4 is good in blitz against players who don't know what to do (I will never play this against Gligoric. Then again, I'm not going to have a chance to play Gligoric, or probably any other masters at all... 
) . I do not believe that one game with such a rating discrepancy can refute an opening, and as an unusual opening that was solid enough to even be played at master level, I still hold that b4 is good at blitz non-master games. However, as earlier stated, I would never play b4 OTB, and most definitely not against a GM. I'm sorry if any of my earlier comments were misleading as to my position on this topic.
Gligoric won because he KNEW the dream of the white players , to build up a strong pawn center in the middle game supported a by a 'Shmashing' (Austin Powers) Bb2.
He prevented this attempt by putting himself a pawn to c5 early on. This detail cannot be repeated often enough.
At the end it was HIM who 'shmashed' the opponent with his center of pawns.
@peterleeflang: can you show us where Damjanovic went wrong and why?
I think the combination with both a3 and b5 is not good together. 3.a3 is also overall passive. Probably 3.b5 is already an improvement (I think, but I'm just guessing really)
If it is so as you say, that you won many many games on chesscom with this opening against strong opponents, I will be really impressed, and I will have to apologize.
Well, at least that gives the rest of us something to live for.
This is a silly and irrelevant argument. "Nothing wrong" is by no means a synonym with "theoretically best."
i cant imagine it having ever been used by fischer, can you give me a link to the game?