1.e4 or 1.d4/c4

one of the differences i note between 1.e4 and 1.d4/c4 is that in the former piece trades happen quite early. obviously this is not desirable for white. also, i find that the latter helps in building a stronger center. in my natural element i still find that i can play 1.d4 better but i force myself to play 1.e4 because that is what is recommended for beginners and i do not want to have pretensions of being a grandmaster.

is this reasonable and should i change to d4. my coach is against the idea.

it is just a matter of taste and style. e4 and d4 are equally good opening moves.

1.e4 has a reputation for leading to more open, tactical-type games. Such games are more likely to be immediately violent and they can either lead to quick victories or, as you noted, end up with a bunch of early piece exchanges leading to (theoretically) dead equality.

1.d4/1.c4/1.Nf3 are more likely to start out as slow, maneuvering-type positional games where strategy dominates. At least until (possibly) a certain key pawn break(s) occurs and the center is suddenly opened. Then things get violent and tactics/better piece placement once again dominate.

Your coach is probably correct to tell you to stick with 1.e4. The problem with changing opening systems is there is a learning curve to each new one you try. Certain tactical liabilities tend to arise again and again in different opening systems and it takes some playing experience to figure out what they are and how best to deal with them. In addition, openings don't really matter all that much at club level anyway, where the better tactical player is more often than not going to win regardless of opening anyway.
The other benefit to sticking to 1.e4 is you'll probably improve your tactical skills faster than if you play something like 1.d4 that tends to be a bit quieter by comparison.

Early trades aren't necessarily bad for white or black.  What matters in the opening is that you claim some central space and get your pieces into the game.

In the d4/c4 games where there are no trades, black is also building a strong center.  A good reason to switch openings is because you either don't understand the middlegame ideas, or those positions are uncomfortable for you to play.  For example I play with a guy who likes 1.d4 because the opening is easier, but as soon as we get to the middlegame he's unsure what to do next.  You may say you like 1.d4 better, but don't fool yourself like my friend.  Ask yourself how well you preform after 10 moves have been played.

Some d4/c4 openings stay closed for a long time.  In these middlegames it's more difficult to play correctly because there are often exceptions to the rules.  Exceptions like delaying or not castling, and development not being as important.  This may be why your coach wants you to stick with 1.e4.  It gives you a chance to learn the rules before making things a bit more complicated.

Another thing to keep in mind also: there's nothing wrong with trying out new opening systems in, say, correspondence games or speed games to see how you like them. Speed games in particular are great for trying out "unsound" openings because unless your opponent more or less already knows how to meet your continuation, he'll (at the very least) eat up more of his clock time than usual trying to figure it out.

Plus a lot of the "unsound" stuff (e.g. Elephant Gambit, Budapest Gambit, Latvian/Albin Countergambits) tends to be potentially dangerous for the other side, so if they go wrong early on, you might be able to hit 'em with some kind of trap or something.

wafflemaster, it is not at all like you say. i am very comfortable with the middlegame positions arising out of 1.d4. In fact, I am far more comfortable with them than with 1.e4. I find many more tactical opportunities and to be brutally honest 1.e4 games really bore me.

What kinds of lines are you playing that result in piece exchanges? It might be easier to choose a different variation rather than a different opening.

binblaster i play ruy lopez and open sicilian given the chance.

the only problem is that there are so many pieces en prise in both of them that exchanges happen.

in d4, white gets to choose a setup without too much contact with the enemy and then can choose to open up the position whenever desired.

i don't know i think i am a natural d4 player. like i mentioned, i even give my coach a fight with 1.d4 but not at all with 1.e4 the only response i fear against 1.d4 is grunfeld and to a lesser degree king's indian.

Play whatever gets you into the middlegame that you are most comfortable playing. If that means opening with d4 then go for it (although I often lose my first few games when I am learning a new opening)

hmm .. yeah .. d4 is the best. no wonder kasparov played it exclusively and kasparov was as tactical as they come.

i play king's indian and sicilian pelikan as black both of which i find interesting lines with some grip on the position.

now i am trying to get into the benoni and the benko gambit

d4 is more work though

when i first started playing, i thought that after 1.d4 the endgame starts

Things change.  Two years ago, I loathed playing 1.d4 and against 1.d4.  I got bored the moment any GM game I was watching started 1.d4 d5 2. c4 etc.  Possibly, watching the Anand / Gelfand match contributed to that.

Then my daughter's coach started teaching her London System openings and the QGD openings.  She in turn, passed on her coaching to me.  Now I love playing 1.d4 and also against it.  Against 1.e4, I was always playing a Sicilian reply but now almost everyone responds with a Grand Prix and I fall apart.  Now I play Caro-Kann against 1.e4.  Against 1.d4, I used to find myself cramped but after learning the Lasker Defence and doing some research on Tarrasch replies, I can keep the game fairly open.

The point I am labouring is that all openings exist for a reason and with a bit of study and hard-work, something that you once hated can suddenly become your preferred choice.

Don't overestimate how important openings are. At the club level, they're pretty much not at all. There's nothing wrong experimenting with some different systems to see what openings give you positions you like and ones you don't like, but at some point you should pick something and stick with it. Shifting openings too much will likely only stifle your progress.

Also, for the record, Kasparov played both 1.e4 and 1.d4 quite frequently throughout his career.

To me there is a lot to be said for playing 1 c4 and why I'm taking up playing it, 1 d4 and 1 e4 receive so much more attention/study by opponents, and 1 c4 is a very good strategic opening itself.  

Plus 1.c4 can transpose into many QGD lines if you wish.