When can I switch to d4?

I love playing 1. d4 games. I just like the way the board looks and the feel of the game.

However, I've read a lot of places that you should really learn 1. e4 first, specifically guicco piano ect ect as a beginner. At what skill level would it be alright to start learning 1. d4?

It's ridiculous to say that you should or shouldn't play any paritcular opening as a beginner.  Play whatever you want.  I've played mostly d4 since I was a beginner, and it doesn't seem to have messed me up.

play whatever you want

Playing d4 helped my learning. If you love it, play it. The only ones strongly advocating e4 are players who still prefer e4.

I think this is a brilliant question and I sympathise fully. I also love the feel of d4 and set up of d4, but have been likewise told to be play e4 (with good reason) first in order to develop a tactial feel to the game. This advice has been supported by more than one person of merit, so I don't distrust it at all, just that I likewise understand where the OP is coming from.

When should one play d4, at what stage? Rating? Level?

I must add that playing e4 has not in any way made much difference. I just would genuinely like to hear a good answer to this one too.

It's really strange to me that people think d4 games don't contain any tactics.  This is absolute nonsense.  Many of my d4 games can become very sharp.  I agree that it's important to develop your tactical skills, but the notion that this can only be done in e4 openings is absolutely absurd!

But a person will improve more playing positions they enjoy and are happy to watch master games and analyse in 1.d4 than they would playing 1.e4 and not really enjoying it.

the way i understand it the idea of starting your career with 1.e4 is that with 1.e4 you open the  game right away and learning to play with a open position very well and learn how to play with a center. this is the most valuable lesson you can get because all games even 1.d4 games will eventually be opened

I'm a beginner player, but I can sympathize with the questioner. 1. e4 is boring.

I'm forcing myself to play black all the time for the past week since I joined as I have very little experience with black since I have played mostly on computers. I'm finding that since white doesn't always start with e4 I am being challenged to play different openings.

Its satisfying my urge for something new, and I'm still learning a lot. But I do want to be a much better player and agree that having fun and building a strong understanding of the game can be two different things.

My goal right now is to be at 2000 by the end of the year. Lots of work ahead.

That's really silly, and just not true. I didn't switch from 1.e4 to 1.d4 out of fear, but because I wanted to improve positionally and wanted to experience a wider range of pawn structures and positions and types of play.

And the idea that the 'time' is a value of no importance in chess -- apart from the clock -- is worse than silly. Maybe you've heard of something called the initiative or a development advantage? Or if not, perhaps you've heard of Garry Kasparov, who has talked about chess as a game of material, time, and quality? The 'time' he is referring to there is not clock time, so what do you (think you) know that Kasparov doesn't?

JUST DO IT. If you want to play 1.d4, go for it; don't let anybody hold you back. If you're still scared about those people who say 1.e4 should be played to hone your tactics, as honestly, 1.e4 tends to be a bit more tactics-oriented (of course there are alot of exceptions, get over it that's chess), do a tactics book! You should be doing them anyway.

Looking at the openings data for chess.com 1.e4 scores 38.5% whilst 1.d4 scores 38.9% wins for white. Stick with the percentages , never know when that 0.4% might be the edge

Just stick with 1.e4.  Two words:

Ruy Lopez

Two other words Queens Gambit

So much of the "common wisdom" on these boards, including the notion of "e4 is tactical; d4 is positional" is utter hogwash. Positional and tactical are two sides of the nsame coin. Positional is nothing more than awareness of the oppomnent's tactical possibilities, while striving to achieve your own. Some e4 openings are more swashbuckling -- but you're not always sure whose swash is going to buckle first. Many d4 lines lead to strong development, good piece coordination, and ultimately, excellent tactical possibilities. Obviously, three out of three positives suggest that d4 should never be played. Never mind that half of chess theory involves trying to counter the strength of the Queen's Gambit. Play the Ruy Lopez (and end up facing the Caro-Kann, French, Sicilian, Scandinavian, Petroff, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc...........)

What you said was completely different from what I said. I didnt say they are better off learning things they enjoy. I said that if they are enthusiastic and will spend more time going over games in their favourite positions they will improve more. They will be motivated to work harder.

Of course you are right that players shouldnt attempt to hide behind slower systems, they need to understand that their first move doesnt influence the game. But, what makes you think the OP is attempting to hide behind 1.d4?

the colle / london systems are easy to learn but honestly, every time I'm black against d4 I hope my opponent plays them... it's easy for white to play but also easy for black to play against it.

If you go 1.d4, go all the way and play the QG (.... if you want). look at a couple QGA lines, be familiar with meran main lines, understand the plans behind typical QGD structures (black's KN maneuver, white's minority attack/play on qside), and if you're feeling spicy, take a look at some of the botvinnik lines. 

I feel like d4 can be more forgiving at the amateur levels than e4, which may be a good thing depending on how you play and what you're looking to achieve out of the opening in general. 

I love to play the queen's gambit. I think the colle and london system arent near as exciting. I don't mind playing e4. I love the ruy and the scotch, but nothing is quite as fun as 1. d4 .... 2. c4.

It's not that I want to hide behind d4. I've actually been playing only e4 for awhile, but d4 is just a more fun game. I love the old GMs like rubinstein and capablanca. (mainly rubinstein, his endgame videos on this site are freaking amazing). I just want to know when I have accomplished whatever Im supposed to be learning from 1. e4 before going back to QG.

Again, just ditto with this. My feelings exactly. It's also a little strange to be told play e4 and to go through old master games, starting with the likes of Capablanca who inevitably play d4 most of the time.

OP if you're under 50 and rated between 1200 - 1700, play 1.g4 for at least a FULL decade before you start playing stuff like 1.e4 or 1.d4, evryone who says any different doesnt know what they're talking about and are SOFT SECTOR NONSENSE!