Why d4 is better than e4 improved edition

Playing e4 allows the sicilian. This is a way for black to play for a win and it is objectively completely sound. There is the najdorf, sveshnikov (which i play with like 80% wins for black) dragon (not too sound though) classical (d6 and nc6) taimanov/kan, etc. Black chooses the type of game he wants for the most part and whitehas to be prepared for everything.

1.d4 allows alot less. Less theory needs to be learned. Obviously 1.d4 d5 gives white a nice positional edge with little risk. The only ways to play for a win against 1.d4 is 1...nf6 There is the King's Indian but that's obviously a little unsound and the grunfeld. The Grunfeld is good for dynamic play but white can play 3.Nf3 and 4.Bf4/Bg5/e3 and he maintains a slight edge. He can also play 4.cxd5 with the mainlines and the russian variation with 4.nf3 bg7 5.qb3. Black has to be ready for either a positional or tactical battle. The Nimzo/Bogo/Queen's Indians are the most sound ways to fight 1.d4 but undoubtedly white holds a small edge in those lines too either for his space or for his bishop pair. Black can play these for a win in these too but he needs to have strong positional skills and especially in the nimzo strong tactical skills as well. The reason d4 is better than e4 is because they are objectively of the same value but d4 allows white to dominate in choosing what type of game he wants while 1.e4 gives black much of that choice.

I would agree with most of what you say here, but I think that the reason why many players are turning to 1.d4 is not the sicilian, but the Berlin.

I play both first moves myself (as well as 1.c4) and I find that 3.Bb5 systems against the sicilian reach fairly pleasant positions for white (especially against players bent on the sveshnikov ), but the problem is what to do after 1...e5. Allowing the Berlin is certainly not what the 1.e4 player wants to do, but the d3 lines aren't entirely convincing, and if black plays accurately he should equalise against the Scotch and Italian.

However, it is also a question of style. If you like to play with small edges, I would recommend 1.d4, but for aggressive play, with some risk, 1.e4 is the move for you. 

P.S. Does white really hold an advantage after Nf3 and e3 against the Gruenfeld? I think theory thinks of this as more or less equal.

In which one?

If you play d4, you get a closed game, because your idea is to build up space with 2.c4, and this leads to maneuvering.

If you play e4 its a fast tango, i'd not prefer this

Indeed.

The sicilian is overrated; if it scares you then I think your chess is fundamenally flawed.  So what if black gets counter chances?  He does that in every good opening,  for example the semi slav Botvinnik variation.  White doesn't have to be prepared for everything, just play logically and avoid mainlines and he can a pretty good game if he wants to avoid theory, he could even play some of the very viable anti sicilians like the rossolimo, moscow, grand prix, closed sicilian with f4 etc.

d4 does not allow a lot less, that is complete nonsense.  Any expert will tell you that double queen pawn openings tend to lead to sharper positions than double king pawn openings because the pawns in the centre are already defended so there are less forcing moves, as well as both players are further away from castling and by not castling kingiside so early like for example the closed lopez both players keep more options  open.  This means white will probably encounter a wider variety of openings and variations in the queen's pawn opening.

"Obviously 1.d4 d5 gives white a nice positional edge with little risk" Now that's just complete balderdash."

"The only ways to play for a win against 1.d4 is 1...nf6 There is the King's Indian but that's obviously a little unsound and the grunfeld" Completely wrong and the King's Indian is completely sound.  Just because the mainline Mar Del Plata variation usually gives white a small edge does not mean it is unsound.

The gruenfeld is one of the theoretically best defenses and you will find numerous threads on this site from masters asking for a line in the Gruenfeld where white can mantain a small edge, or at least a preferable position.  

The vast majority (I would guesstimate around 80%) of Gruenfeld games are quie tactical  in nature and by playing the opening that is obvious that that is what black wants.  White on the other hand is the one who has to be prepared.

"The Nimzo/Bogo/Queen's Indians are the most sound ways to fight 1.d4 but undoubtedly white holds a small edge in those lines too either for his space or for his bishop pair" I'm not sure what your justification is for "they are the most sound" and to say that white undoubtedly holds a small edge is ludicrous.  The general consensus for a long time has been that the Nimzo is probably black's best chance at equalising and white usually  can't get any sort of objective advantage there.  Even if white avoids it black can opt for a Queen's Indian where it is also very difficult to prove any kind of objective advantage.

Your final conclusion is invalid too.  As pointed out already d4 gives black at least, if not more options than e4, therefore your arguement has no basis whatsoever.

It's common knowledge that white gets a slight advantage out of both 1.d4 and 1.e4 but on 1.e4 black can either get a typical 1.d4 related position (french, caro-kann, petroff) but he can also fight back sharply with the sicilian. Maybe black has more options in general after 1.d4 but not as much choice in the type of game that will follow. Based on statistics black is certainly not equalizing in the Grunfeld, QID or NID. The point is that while 1.d4 and e4 are the same value objectively, 1.d4 allows white to choose the type of game and the kind of position while 1.e4 gives a lot of that choice to black

You play the Sveshnikov, but GM Evgeny Sveshnikov himself says that the Sicilian isn't so good of an opening because White can just play 2.c3.

 I totally disagree with the entire OP.

It was much better than that dicky post 5 though!

The OP is in the world of opinion being mistaken for fact. Post 5 is just factually wrong.

Post 5 is factually dick.

what's so good about 2.c3 I score well against that too

Truthfully, 1.e4 wins on the spot. 

But seriously, no one can take the first post and this debate as a whole seriously. It's common knowledge that 1.e4 and 1.d4 are both viable winning tries for White, and the stats are negligible and in some cases, meaningless. Almost none of serious amateur games are decided by the opening, at least not in any fundamental way. Using stats from the masters doesn't really make sense if one is not a master. It's really all just silly. In the spirit of my first post. 

Mahna Manah. Do doo do do do

Since when are the french, caro-kan and petroff "typical 1.d4 related position(s)" ?

No.

A lot of players agree that no matter what opening white employs, black can probably equalise eventually, whether it takes 5 moves or 30 moves.

White does NOT dictate the play in d4 openings more than e4.  Infact, no matter what opening I believe that black always has more chances to dictate the play since he has the advantage of information; this is because white plays first and therefore must reveal part of their plan.  Granted, this advantage is much less than that of white's half tempi, however imo it does mean that black has more chances to steer the game towards his territory. 

And you really can't trust the "statistics" of big databases.  Far, far more games are dictated by unprinicipled mistakes, rather than what opening you choose.  Take a look at some of the statistics from 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 e5 for example.  After analysing some of the lines in quite some depth I conclude that  white just has a good game.  However, I  have looked at the statistics in several databases and from what I have seen, they have all favoured black, which obviously makes no sense since through logic white has played the best move, if not a move that is equal to the best (through transposition, etc.)

I agree with this (though I would prefer to call it a practical advantage, oppose to an "objective" one).  You also havve to factor in which side has the clearer and easier to execute plans etc.

To be clear: do you believe that after the moves 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 that 3.Bb5, 3.Bc4, and 3.Nc3 are all of equal strength?

Furthermore, do you believe that the reason that 3.Bb5 is chosen at the gradmaster level far more often than 3.Bc4 is because grandmasters feel more comfortable in the Spanish rather than the Italian?