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

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.

Also, the thread title is a bit conflated.

"Beginners" and "intermediate players" are two different experience levels.

With beginners, things like basic principles of development are often more than enough to focus on.

Something like:

"What's a good move for white here? Nf3, or a3?"

and

"What's a good move for black, here? Nh6 or e6?"

Then the coach explains the logic behind the moves.

This is how I first learned openings, as a beginner. I didn't learn the "names" of the openings until much later.

Just shows he talked rubbish much of the time doesn't it. Considering he played 1. d4 by transposition against Spassky several times.

I seem to remember him playing board one for Widnes when I was playing board 7 or 8. I think there were two GMs and then an IM, then an untitled guy from the former Yugoslavia, about 2400 fide. I had been performing well but my mum died or became ill and my results suffered so I was dropped.

Exactly what they shouldn't be doing and why 1. e4 and the Italian is no good for beginners. Their perception of chess will be skewed. That's why most people on this site will never get higher than 1300 or something. They don't understand the game because they learned it wrongly.

I’m glad I switched over to c4.

No more cheap tricks, traps and boat loads of theory.

I have been trying out c4 and it seems to create interesting positional battles. You'll have to advise me on how to play it.

There’s a lot of freedom so it came down to personal choice and taste for me.

My mainline is the Reversed Sicilian (complex) with sidelines consisting of the Larsen Attack (simple, positional and open tactical game) and Botvinnik System (closed).

Theres a lot of possible transpositions into d3, d4 and e3 lines as well. I feel very comfortable and enjoy the positions no matter how black responses because I always have at least 2 choices instead of paying one narrow path that you get find yourself in e4 and d4 openings.

My latest set of games on the Reversed Sicilian, Larsen Attack and Botvinnik System in order:

https://www.chess.com/game/live/51214226355

https://www.chess.com/game/live/51253831011

https://www.chess.com/game/live/51243554769

From what I can tell from the first game, (very nice game by the way) is that you try and control the weak light squares, and treat it like a reversed Accelerated Dragon?

In the first one 3. ...Bc5 looks really bad for black. These days I play 2. g3 ...f5 and hope for the best. At least it's a winning attempt for black where the better player might win. I don't know any theory for it. I suppose white has 3. d4 though.

I suppose if 3. ...Bc5 then ...d6 is mandatory for black and ... d5 shouldn't be played.

Yes. Black really has to worry about the potential d4 push after 3. ...Bc5.

Thank-you.

You are correct.

I prefer the Sicilian Dragon as white but not black because the two tempi and no Yugoslav Attack is a luxury to play being a Sicilian player. The accelerated line also takes away blacks cheap trick in the Shirov/Kramnik/Reversed Rossolimo attempt.

Things became a lot of fun for me once I understood the ideas, themes and strategies in both the English and Sicilian. As you mentioned, light square dominance is one theme and long term strategy. Then you can add in dark square strategies with the DSB that can lead to a double fianchetto set-up or have both bishops pointing at the king side in menacing in lines such as the Dutch (f5 ideas) and Reversed Grand Prix.

The other aspect to freedom is white chooses where he wants counter play on the board: queenside, central or king side or two!

Another example in the Botvinnik System, you can lock the centre and choose which file to counter play on such as the b or f files. The king side counter play will appeal to KIA and Vienna players; I can say this because I use to play e4.

I forgot the Cuban NM who advocates this?

Main key is understanding the ideas of imbalance and counter play, not theory or move orders because there aren’t many books on this stuff anyways, thus freed me up to play and bypass a lot of theory or avoid cheap tricks or theorizing a narrow path to victory associated with e4 and d4 lines.

Case in point in the Scandinavian, my opponent was routinely playing his pet line and oblivious to what I was doing; easy win. It was all improvised:

https://www.chess.com/game/live/24620535969

That is one strong way to beat the Anglo-Scandinavian!