Are 1.d4? or 1.c4? questionable

ps 200 quid you owe me for this

Regicide =to kill a monarch

enjoy i will teach english for 200 anytime post to lovers of 1 c4 they will forward it me thnx

oi theivin tyke wait till i set my squirrel on you and all you give my cash to lol

I highly recommend the book "Logical Chess: Move by Move" by Irving Chernev. He goes through 33 master games and explains EVERY move. The first section (nearly half the book) is straight up attacks on the enemy king. Then he goes into queen's pawn games, where the idea is to build more subtle advantages and head to a winning endgame, rather than just trying to corner the king early.

There's a reason that's one of the most highly recommended books for beginners. But re-reading it now as an intermediate player (peak USCF rating in the 1700s, even higher on most internet sites), I think I'm actually getting a lot more out of it than when I read it as a beginner years ago.

Here's one thing to consider, in the opening you don't know which way the king will castle. So if you prepare to attack on the kingside or queenside, he may castle the other way. In some cases if you make a lot of threats on the side, the king can even stay in the center.

So moves like 1.___   (fill in the blank) aren't about checkmate just yet. But they are about getting some key elements to any good attack (kingside or queenside). And that is claiming some central space with pawns and getting your knights and bishops off the back of the board quickly.

Controlling the center and quickly developing your pieces are fundamental opening ideas that will give you a good mid-game to work with. Centralized pieces can easily swing to either side of the board and controlling the center squares with pawns limits the enemy knights and bishops from doing the same.

c4 has won me more games than e4 and d4 combined, I love the english

Of course d4 and c4 are questionable, they obviously aren't doing anything useful if they're not attacking the kingside.  Same with other moves like g3, Nf3, Nc3, b3.....In fact, if you want to attack the kingside, then OF COURSE the way to go is with the Grob, where you immediately gain space on the kingside and threaten to overrun the enemy position.  What could possibly be so bad about that?

So you don't think controlling middle squares is worth it? It seems like it is though, in practice.

The thing is, it basically IS a "noob question," because it implies the best way to go is to throw everything possible at the king in order to mate it quickly.  It worked in the Romantic Era of chess, but that was a century and a half ago, and defenses have improved heavily through the years, as chessmicky has already stated.  Yes, the goal is to eventually mate the king, but you can't expect to make a flurry of tactics and sacrifices to mate the king (except at lower levels, of course, where anything and everything can happen), and you need to prepare for an attack first.  Additionally, it will often be the case that you have to go to a winning endgame in order to eventually mate the king (if they play on, of course, once they realize they've lost).  More subtle measures must be taken, such as slow positional play and good manouvering, in many games in order to win, even if one must give up direct attacks against the king to accomplish this.

Problem with all out attacks is that they rarely ever work, and people need to find other strategies to work around that. Sure they might work at 1200 level but it stops there.

I've broke over 2000 otb and all out attacks work all the time against all the way up to 2300

They don't work because they're fundamentally unsound, and decent players will find a way to refute them. There is no reason to go crazy when playing chess, especially while playing strong opponents. Attacking is great but playing unsound sacs and hoping your opponent doesn't see tactics is pointless and counterintuitive to learning.

If you're able to calculate like Tal then sure you can play anything and win, but that kind of play wouldn't really work in today's GM level. I'm talking about mostly cheap tricks which are pointless against good opposition, Tal never played unsound gambit openings or anything that's unplayable. I enjoy playing those type of people because there is no better feeling in chess than refuting a big attack. It's why I always accept gambits, I'm a big admirer of Korchnoi chess.

attack= cheap tricks ? lol

d4 and c4 are for scrubs

I have beat +2300 fide oppoents with cheap tricks as well.

Even going for such tricks unless in pure desperation is foolish, attacking isn't always cheap, but when you start giving up material and overpressing, the game could easily turn against you. Plus e4 isn't even a more tactical choice than d4 in the first place!