Should a beginner play d4 or e4 first?

The knight on g5 is hanging.

I feel the need to comment on this.

If taught ANY opening correctly, a player should be able to "bypass most tricks and play a solid game".

Learning to play the opening phase well and reach a playable middle-game is not some rare event—and it's certainly not something that only system openings provide. A beginner can learn to play any opening with proficiency.

That said, it's great that you believe in the London, and it's certainly a playable opening at any level. But to argue that beginners should learn it because it avoids many opening pitfalls is too narrow of a reason for promoting it (and kind of misses the point of good chess instruction for beginners in general).

The reason e4 games are taught to beginners goes beyond the concern about "pitfalls"—it has more to do with exposing the student to common tactical (and even positional) ideas, to help them learn how to think at the board.

With the Ruy Lopez, for example, white is learning, right from the beginning, the fundamentals of tactical play. After 1...e5, white develops his knight to f3, which both develops a piece and attacks black's undefended central pawn. After black defends with ...Nc6, white plays his bishop to b5—attacking the defender of the pawn.

This line is instructive—it teaches the beginner how to think at the board with direct, logical moves.

The London System has an appealing "safeness" to it, yes, but the moves are far less instructive. Are they practical? Sure. Instructive? Not so much, not when comparing it to e4 games.

If one's really dead-set on promoting the London, I'd save it for the intermediate level, after the student has benefited from the instructional nature of e4 games.

This is the same way I plan to teach my son (when he's old enough. He's still a bit young at the moment)—by exposing him to the ideas of e4 chess. Then, when he's ready to branch out, introducing him to the non-e4 systems. But only after. Not before.

Start with e4 and then continue with d4

The beginner can play the London as white and the scandinavian gambit as black (icelandic gambit, which is VERY tactical).  Get the best of both worlds.

I would NEVER take the pawn with the knight (that is a BLUNDER as Qh4, after bishop takes pawn wins a piece).  I would play c6 and GAMBIT the pawn to get 3 pieces developed.  Stockfish says the position is equal, but black has the initiative, and initiative is extremely important for beginners.  

Thank you for your comment.  Cheers.

I feel there is a big misconception that d4 leads to boring games.  It is quite the opposite.  EVEN when I was younger and not 1800 like right now.

Even if you do play something you know there are always ways to change the nature of the game and invite "tricks." Let's try the KIA:

So White goes from some game in which he can play system moves to one on which he will have to play very actively. That means tactics, which means calculation, which means blunders. You can't escape it no matter what you know in the opening. The London? Let's try something cheeky:

Once again White is pulled out of the opening and will need to do something other than rattle off system moves. And that will sooner or later lead to White's true strength being shown in the game. It's better for White for sure but that isn't the point. The point is that White is going to be on his own playing moves he hasn't memorized. We're not in Kansas anymore.

Trying to avoid trappy positions or whatever is a waste of time and you'd only really do that if you had tactical problems. You're better off working on tactics and playing whatever you like that's within reason.

Thank you so much for your post!  Yes, it is VERY important to focus on tactics first as a beginner.  Start wth easy combinations and slowly move to harder combinations.  However, the london system can lead to a VERY quick kingside attack if black is not careful.

Cheers, friend

These are basically the reasons given in support of playing 1.e4.

But the London System actually has many tactical ideas for white.  if Black does not play precise, a kingside attack will be incoming very quickly.

The point is to gain experience. Systems are more commonly recommended by friends as a stop gap measure. Coaches usually rather you gain experience in many position types. The point with 1.e4, at least at club level, is the games tend to be more open and tactical, so the improving player gets more tactical/calculation practice.

@poodle_noodle

So play the Scandinavian gambit as black, preferably the icelandic gambit which is FILLED with tricks and traps.  This way the beginner gets the best of both worlds.  Do you agree?

It's funny you mention that opening. I played it a lot over the years, and it is funny how many types of openings / structures it can transpose into. Maybe this is a good choice. My only complaint is around 1800 I felt like I had to give it up as more and more opponents knew how to give black a very uncomfortable position.

GM Smerdon wrote a book on the Scandinavian gambit and it's 496 pages long. But I suppose it's written for more advanced players. I'm sure there are other, more simple resources out there to learn this from. It can be fun to play, especially when the king randomly ends up on f7 and it's not a big deal.

He did a lecture about it at the Melbourne chess club a while before his book was released here:

e4 is more likely to lead to tactical variations whereas d4 leads to positional. so d4 probably, regardless of traps. it fits into a beginners mindset better which is 'take pieces at all costs', until they're ready to leave that mindset for bigger and better things.

One can play positional with a Catalan as white....and aggressive with the scandinavian Icelandic gambit as black.  

The london system is more aggressive than the colle.  That is why I greatly endorse it.

Thank you for your response, sir.

Well, with the London System, you can get a Knight on e5 and get a powerful kingside attack, if black is not careful (and we are talking about beginners here haha)

The London System is like a sleeping dragon, and it lures the opponent into a false sense of security, but there are MANY tactical ideas.

Beginners aren't in a position to execute a kingside attack. Beginners work on avoiding hanging pieces and taking advantage of hanging pieces and under defended pieces. In my class of 11 kids this semester not one could or should even be thinking of attacking an opponents king. They are focused on developing all their pieces and keeping them safe while trying to win material in some way. Promoting the London as Aggressive, and I've played that opening for nearly a year exclusively, is a misnomer in every way. Its a safe opening that develops pieces to reasonably active but safe squares and allows black to easily do the same. Its an opening that like few others says "lets just develop for a few moves and then play chess". Nothing wrong with that but its best to be fair of the London and not try to label it as something it's clearly not especially when promoting those who wouldn't know better (beginners).