e4 or d4?

Yeah, I totaly agree with you guys. But it's very interesting to see Anand winning games in the candidates and now in the Tal Memorial playing 1.e4 (which he has played his entire life). What about Bobby Fisher? He played 1.d4 only three times in his life. And guys like Akhobian and Gelfand are top Grandmasters and only play 1.d4

My feeling is that a person who knows how to play 1.e4 is able to play 1.d4 normally, but a 1.d4 player will play 1.e4 poorly.

I watched a documentary about Boris Spasskij some time ago, and there he says he had a dream where Bobby Fischer came to him. Boris asked him: What is the best first move, do you still think it is 1.e4? And Bobby had answered: No, 1.d4 is the best. Because the pawn is protected :)

Yeah, I saw him saying this on an interview. Only in dreams would Fischer say this.

"1) P-K4 best by test" - Robt. James Fischer

Are you attack player or positional?

1. e4 requires more theory knowledge. It will lead to sharper playing and move order can be very important if you don't wanna get into trouble. It's more suitable for attack players.

1. d4 is a closed system and theory knowledge and move order aren't that important. Things are more about general positional ideas. Games are also less sharp. It's more suitable for positional players.

Nice explanation! It seems to me that nowadays the top 20 are 1. e4 players. Take Karjakin, Anand, Caruana, Michael Adams, Nepo, Svidler, for example. They are always the contestants in tourneys. And it seems that 1. e4 players have been the last champions recently. Apparently it's actually the strongest choice that and nobody can contest it.

It seems that a d4 player won't play e4 well, while an e4 player can play d4 without any complications...

What do you guys think?

As an attack player I mostly play 1. e4. I switched to 1. d4 for a time and found I didn't score as well with it as with e4. I also wasn't very comfortable with the closed positions in the 1. d4 opening. So I switched back to 1. e4.

e4 is hard but rewarding, hence good
It forces you to learn all type of structures, caro, french, sicilian, ruy etc
an example of my last game
en.lichess.org/VSNHwbHCjaK6
I went for the danish gambit since I never play it but I faced it as black several times these last days
you also can see scandinavian, alekhine, modern defece philidorph, still learning it, very rich opening more of a family of openings
In short, it can take a lifetime to master it.
Imo, its good to be comfortable in open positions before playing positional chess, although I started the other way around with the caro and philidorph, and stuff like that I think,
or scandinavian
there is also petroff defence , its just very rich.

It was not the danish gambit, it does not matter, its the same idea
to sack some pawns for development, althoug its not my style of play.

Play 1. e4, if e5 is responded, play 2. f4! and get fun! Good luck!