Should e4 be less focused on for beginner and intermediate players?

Many players start out by playing e4 as it is supposedly "best by test". However, there are many problems with e4 for beginner and intermediate players.

1. e4 is so common, most players have a response they know well. This can be said of d4 as well though, so take this with a grain of salt.

2. e4 has so many different responses that you have to be prepared for, that you have to spend a long time studying opening theory, and spending less time on the middlegame and endgame.

3. There are a lot of tactics that arise from most e4 openings, and if you're a beginner or intermediate player, it's sometimes hard to navigate through them, and come out with a position in the middlegame that is reasonable and has a simple plan attached to it. However, most d4 openings have a plan attached that in most scenarios you can stick with for the entire game.

4. d4 is simply more solid, and you can save time in the opening, come out with a good position in the middlegame, save your time to improve that position, and wait for your opponent to make a mistake, or simply outplay them.

5. Many would argue that d4 is boring and does not create exciting positions, but I strongly disagree. Just because there aren't as many fireworks in the opening, doesn't mean that it isn't an interesting game as a whole, and there are many d4 openings where you can create early counterplay and play for a win in the opening.

I know that I'm in the minority here, and just because this is what I believe, it does not mean that it's true. However, I truly believe that if more beginner and intermediate players played a solid d4 opening, and spent their extra time on middlegames and endgames, they would improve much quicker. Feel free to state your opinion, as there isn't one answer, and the question is much more complicated than what I mentioned. These are just some points on why I believe e4 isn't as good to play for beginner and intermediate players.

I admit, as a d4 player I'm slightly biased.

And I've never really tried to play e4 openings and give them a chance.

I'm just a biased chess player who has no qualifications that make them reliable, but the fact that I have played 1500 games with d4, and has gotten to 1600 blitz.

When does the middlegame begin? When you see a position which you haven't seen before?

    1.e4 is recommended so often for new players because a lot of the 1.e4  e5 openings' tactics revolve around white setting up and black defending against the standard sacrificial mating combinations on h7 and f7. A lot of experts feel that learning these types of direct attacking and defensive strategies is the best foundation for learners to build on.

     The tyro is expected to get their butt kicked by more experienced players during the learning process. Having one's defenses shattered and one's attacks fizzle is part of the learning process.

e4 is usually more tactical and d4 more positional.. for beginners is the tactic more important, so thats why e4 is so often recommended to them.. or at least thats what i think that its the reason

I actually find 1.e4 a lot easier to play without opening knowledge. I am usually the one attacking in those games and my development happens very quickly.

When I play 1.d4, I usually have to survive an early queenside attack via the a5-e1 diagonal, pins, and development is harder for me. To be fair, I haven't played 1.d4 in a long time. I also hate the nimzo-indian more than the sicilian. 

Studying tactics helps beginners with e4 openings more than d4 openings in my opinion. Tactics and opening principles should be the study plan for beginners in my opinion. For that, 1.e4 works nicely.

I don't see any harm in trying both though. 

There are also a lot of tactics in 1.d4 games. No good reason not to play either 1.e4 or 1.d4 or 1.c4 or 1.Nf3 except personal preference.

I think a lot depends on your definition of beginner.  Sometimes people refer to 1200 rated players with 3 years of experience as beginners, while it also refers to actual real new to the game beginners. This is maybe the most popular question on the forum and time and time again proves to be a controversial topic.

Assuming you are referring to actual beginners. I think e4 is fine. e4 e5 horse horse horse horse Bishop Bishop castles castles pawn pawn (or something along those lines) is a perfect starting point to learn chess opening principles.  Playing fun aggressive tactical games is also great for beginners. I don't think studying opening theory is needed or even recommended. The downside of  playing e4 as beginner is that you will face c5 played by another beginner and no good can come of that.

And about d4 being boring, I  don't think boring games exist for beginners.

For the more advanced beginners I agree d4 can good. I started playing the London and it was great, precisely because it was a setup based opening. No opening theory required, it covered all basics, it was solid and offers interesting attacking opportunities.   Actually, after a year and a half of playing it, I still highly recommend it.

And at my level. Still not boring.

I played e4 since I started 1.5 year ago. It has worked great so far. But maybe I should at least try to play d4 for little bit to learn what is going on, on that side. I mean it should help me in the long term on how to face the d4 player when I play black. But at the same time it is kinda scary to shift from my comfort zone e4 to new terrain d4.

In my opinion it is not important with white. I play 1) d4 (with later 2.c4) and 1) e4 because it's more fun to vary and I think it's good "to know how to play" both. 

On the other hand with black against 1) d4 (with later 2.c4) and 1) e4 we need an opening repertoire otherwise we can quickly be broken or be in difficulty "because of the opening". 

While there is no "best opening", the top tier of openings is e4, d4, Nf3, and c4.

The problem with Nf3 for beginners is that it allows so many transpositions that it will be overwhelming for a new player.  As they get stronger and experiment with more openings, this can become their main weapon as they may feel comfortable with those transpositions and how to navigate them.

c4 is a bit too complex to start with as a beginner.  It can lead to some very strategic games or transpose into other d4 and e4 lines and it seems to violate one of the basic opening principles (on the surface at least).  Because of those reasons, it is better for a beginner to stick to d4 or e4.

Which is better for a beginner?  Well, it depends.  If you start with e4, you get used to a lot of dynamic positions very quickly.  If you start with d4, the number of different dynamic positions is slightly less.  However, when you are a beginner playing other beginners, neither of you are going to know any theory and are likely going to make tactical and positional blunders all over the place.  So, does it really matter?

There are many coaches who will start their beginners with e4 and have them play it for at least a year, and then switch them to d4 and play that for at least a year before they settle on which one they prefer.  Why start with e4 first?  Well, one of the first things many coaches like to teach beginners is how to play with the initiative, so they want them to play gambits:  Evan's Gambit, Smith-Morra Gambit, King's Gambit, etc.  These are all true gambits as White is giving up a pawn for quick development.  There are fewer good opening gambits from the d4 move order (Blackmar-Diemar and its sibling the Ryder are only really good for tricks).

The other problem with d4 is there is a tendency for players to gravitate towards system openings (e.g. London, Trompowsky, Colle) which will give you some success early on, but will require a steep learning curve later on to adjust for the lack of positional variety.

In short, a beginner should eventually learn how to play with both e4 and d4 in some capacity in order to make them a more well-balanced player.

I agree with almost everything that has been posted, and I believe that it is good to try both of them to see which is best for you, I just think that if a beginner (100 - 1000) is going to devote themselves to chess, learning a solid opening that is simpler is a good start, and gives them time to do puzzles and improve tactics for more complex openings later. I am not saying d4 is the best opening to play either, it's just that it worked for me, and I believe it could help many beginners get better. About d4 being boring, I do NOT believe that d4 is boring at all. There are plenty of fireworks that can happen in d4 openings, and even if there aren't fireworks in the opening, there can be games that reach exciting conclusions in the middlegame and endgame as well. I also agree that systems are very good to play, as you learn typical positions quickly, and EVERY game still ends in a different exciting way.

I play Jobava london and the positions become very often tactical. I have alot of short games in that line. I would say its just down to preference what you want to play.

I think when you start out you should play e4 in order to learn the principles of chess quickly namely quick development control of the center etc. once you can start to call yourself an intermediate then perhaps d4 is a better alternative.

e4 is analyzed to death. even at our level its very hard to get a stable edge. its too dynamic there is too much counterplay to deal with.

d4 you can choose a kind of set up which you favor and then only much later blast open the position

Objectively?  How subjective of you.

I agree.

I’ve been playing both e4 and d4 since the 1970s. I recommend playing 1.e4 at least one hundred times and meeting it with 1…e5 at least one hundred times before trying 1.d4.

Playing something like the London without vast experience with 1.d4, as well as with the tactical sense you acquire playing the King’s Gambit, Italian, Scotch, and Spanish, will guarantee you get a nice position that you do not understand.