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

Agreed. I switched to d4 wayyyy too early in my career and ended up having to learn e4 later and having a lot of trouble with it.

if you can’t play the symmetrical Italian, well…

I asked Irina Krush, who always played 1.d4 from the beginning of her chess career, if she could switch to 1.e4. She said that she would have too much to learn. She does play 1.e4 in simuls, but not in her own tournament games.

Bobby Fischer only played 1.e4 until the World Championship match.

I have long espoused Max Euwe’s contention (The Development of Chess Style) that an individual’s personal growth in chess benefits from following the patterns of chess history.* On the other hand, Willy Hendrik’s critique of this notion in On the Origin of Good Moves is worth pondering.

*Richard Reti, Masters of the Chess Board also pushes this idea.

One can think of it two ways. Sometimes one tend to over defend pawns to. Sometimes just letting go of a pawn to get more play might be better. In some gambits lines yes but also in other times. Like you can create threats etc while your opponents is wasting time to go after a pawn. Or open up file. Like sacrificing b pawn as white when playing versus Scandinavian where black takes it with queen and white gets good compensation for the pawn. I have seen Mark Esserman get some cool play sacrificing the b pawn. Which gave him time to lift the rook on the queen side and swing it over to the king side and opponents soon after gets mated.

These days I shy away from 1.e4, because to play it well, one needs to have a rather extensive repertoire.

Given that I have a somewhat busy life, I find 1.e4 a bit difficult to manage.

Though, when I first started learning chess (20 years ago), 1.e4 was the only move I considered. I wasn't even really aware that there were other moves.

And at the chess club that I soon joined, all the players were 1.e4 players. There was never any first move other than 1.e4.

I didn't discover other opening moves until a few years later, when I picked up a game collection and saw a Queen's Gambit game for the first time. It confused me, and I didn't like the look of it.

These days, my tastes have changed. I find Queen's Gambit games fascinating, and 1.e4 games a bit of a mixed bag (sometimes too boring, sometimes too challenging).

But I do believe that my 1.e4 time taught me some valuable chess lessons, even if I don't play it much anymore.

Granted, as black, I love facing 1.e4. I find the games dynamic and interesting. So I hope 1.e4 players never disappear. They help keep chess exciting.

"apparently": precisely what beginning players need to learn.

How many ways does Black think they can safely take e4 in the Berlin Defense? Learning these ideas with 1.e4 will accelerate your understanding of the Queen's Gambit.

I would think 1. e4 is fine for beginners, 1. d4 should be ok, but i would recommend 1. e4. 

This is precisely the mentality that has some lesser coaches teaching their beginners the London System.  It is fairly easy to teach, has very few move order issues, and you get into a middlegame in a roughly equal position.  The problem doesn't show up until they get to 1800-2000 and wonder why they are stuck, only to be told they need to go back and learn more middlegame structures (that they do not see in such system openings) in order to progress further.

Trading long term growth for short term results is not an effective strategy.  It is a bit like a credit card:  sure you got that item on sale for $100, but you will be paying on it for the next 10 years and end up paying $1000 in total.

Just read in Simple Chess Michael Stean's analysis of Karpov -- Westerinen, Nice 1974 and was reminded of the excellent explanation of basic opening principles in the Ruy Lopez in Chess Openings: Theory and Practice, my bible in the 1970s. Karpov's games, of course, are far more sophisticated than anything in Horowitz's classic.

I like beginners starting with e4 because the moves that follow make the clearest sense.  Get the pieces out and castle, avoid a few basic mates, then plan the attack.   e4, nf3, bc4, o-o, c3, d4  very straightforward and the action starts right away.  Also, all those great classic games by Morphy and Andersson all started with e4 and they can enjoy the legacy of the game.

With d4 the obvious reply is d5, then comes the explanation of c4, and right away the main line is a positional gambit that's not really a gambit.  I've often found it an awkward way to start a beginner on the road to playing.

After a few games with e4, show them d4 and they can decide what suits their temperament. 

Within 1.e4 and 1.d4 there are good and bad openings for beginners, both have their fair share of simple systems like the Scotch opening/gambit and Vienna opening/gambit for 1.e4 and exchange Queen's gambit and London system for 1.d4, which are suitable for beginners. Both also include strategically/tactically complex systems, such as Ruy Lopez and Italian game for 1.e4 and Bg5 queen's gambit and Catalan for 1.d4, which are unsuitable for beginners. 

The queen's gambit is reasonable, if you choose the right system, e.g. exchange is fine for beginners. The Italian is generally more appropriate for titled players as it is more about slow manoeuvring and playing positionally, which is too subtle to be appreciated by most beginners (myself included).

You can assert it is "completely wrong", but it isn't.  There are very few move order issues, and very few pawn structures to understand.  That is why it is an example of a bad opening to teach beginners.  They are basically going to get similar structures over and over, but will need to start from scratch to learn the rest of the game.  Not to mention the fact that they often develop the habit of playing the opening on auto-pilot.

The Queen's Gambit is a strategically rich opening with very little in terms of tactical fighting in the opening phases.  So, you think teaching the Ruy Lopez first is too complex, but the Queen's Gambit is simple enough?  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the QG, but saying that the Ruy is too complex while promoting the QG as your alternative is a bit like saying "A Mustang is too fast for a 16-year-old new driver, lets start them off with a Camaro instead".

The irony about you insulting the Italian Game as "immediately teaching bad habits" is that it literally starts by putting 3 of your 4 minor pieces on the ideal squares for a classical development structure.

Which allows you to teach your students 1) what the classical development plan is, 2) why you must deviate from it due to tactics, and 3) how to set up and avoid common tactical motifs in the opening.  It is also one of the opening that has one of the better gambits available (the Evan's gambit) to it - which allows you to teach students how to play with the initiative instead of just material.  I suppose those are all "bad habits".

Karpov (with his preference of closed games) played e4 until almost world championship level. Seems standard with regards to a proper chess education to play e4 either at some point or entirely. Same with e5 as black - Nigel Davies played the pirc but cites e5 as helping him get to grandmaster.

"1 d4 dull & drawish" - Fischer
"1 e4 best by test" - Fischer

You act as though students and coaches don't have the benefit of computers and modern teaching methods to aid them.... The world isn't stuck in the 19th century. Maybe back then some of these crazy repercussions had a narrow chance of happening from someone starting out with e4 and being shown the Italian Game as one of the possible lines. Black doesn't even have to allow it to begin with...

There is a vast variety of resources available to beginners in todays society and I would think most of them understand that. 

I would say what really hurts most beginners is them trying moves like 1.a4 because they just have to get the rooks out first and things like that. A coach telling them to play 1.e4 instead is a great piece of advice. If the coach tells them to play 1.d4, that is also a great piece of advice. I think the main thing about it is what the coach's understanding and background is. Some coaches think 1.d4 is better so they will want to teach their students that; and visa versa for 1.e4.

Have them look over some of the lines from 1.d4 and 1.e4 and talk to them about it. Getting to know where the student stands before recommending an opening might also be a strategy. You could then have them play what is more comfortable to them and go over the resulting games with them. Basically critique their style of play to good chess.  A mixture of puzzles with different themes can be used to supplement their growth depending on what they want to play. You shouldn't be trying to force a playing style on them in my opinion.

1.e4 or 1.d4 – which is the better move?

https://en.chessbase.com/post/1-e4-or-1-d4-which-is-the-better-move#:~:text=e4%20is%20an%20attacking%20move,likely%20to%20end%20in%20draws

Differences between 1.e4 and 1.d4 - 'David Pruess'...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHlZiNk6p-k

e4 vs d4 the Tactical vs Positional Myth? - 'ChessCoach Andras'...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iwpTudIspw

The coaches I know who have had the most successful students have all used the same pattern (keep in mind that this is mostly used with young kids).  They start the student with 1. e4 for the first 1-2 years and then switch them to 1. d4 for another 1-2 years.  Typically the focus of the first couple years is the Ruy/Italian Complex and the focus on the next couple is the Queen's Gambit complex.  Following that period, they let the student play whatever they prefer (with the exception of forcing them to play an opening to help address a specific weakness from time to time).  So as the student progresses, they would ideally have some level of competence with both e4 and d4.  This pattern has been well tested with many coaches.

With that said, I agree that teaching offbeat openings is the only way you can really go wrong.  Teaching the Grob or 1. f3 to a beginner is simply nonsense.  At least something like 1. a4 would effectively be like playing Black from the White side of the board.

I personally agree that starting with 1.e4 is more principled, and for a lot of the same reasons you have mentioned, but I won't knock a coach for starting with 1.d4 if that is what they believe in and they have built their teaching program around it. I say let that individual coach's results with students speak for itself; whoever it might be. Bad results is bad business after all.  

A lot of this discussion reminds me of when I was learning to play the game, how George Koltanowski was pushing the Colle System for beginners.  I saw him give a simul live, and he gave out a pamphlet.  Similar argument - easy to play opening that avoids complications, no need to memorize a lot of variations, less risk of encountering tricky tactics or critical decisions.  I remember reading his case, and seriously considering it.  But ultimately I thought it sounded like learning to play chess by avoiding learning to play chess.  I was interested in the game and wanted to dive into all its intricacies, not play the same game over and over.