Did I read that right? Are you really saying you can use a generalization on "1. e4-players"? Is there any basis for that at all?

I was referring to the fact that a lot of 1. e4-players (that I know) don't seem to have the positional instincts necessary to win with a superior position with no appearant tactics or clear plan. Generally, most e4-players are attackers and 'not so' adapt at winning a game one square at a time by improving the position. However, I think I'm wrongly associating the whole attack on the king/tactics/aggression theme with 1. e4 because I believe 1. e4 is the first move that allows for that to happen the most.
I've thought of a way to rephrase what I really meant, but it's kind of hard to put into words without getting absolute, and chess is anything but absolute.

I think whether players play 1. e4 or 1. d4 is based mostly on what they were taught in the beginning. I know I was taught 1. e4 when I started out in chess. If I was taught 1. d4, then probably I would be a 1. d4 player. So for me, I know it's purely based on chance so far (I'm probably switching to 1. f4 soon though).

Also, the positions arising from the opening don't just depend on the first move. After 1. e4, the game can still get both tactical and positional, open and closed, sharp or boring etc., and the same for 1. d4. Your entire repertoire says what kind of player you are, not just the first move.

There are alot of 1. e4 openings that are not just about chasing black's king, and there are also 1. d4 openings that are about chasing black's king.

1. e4 has a tendency to allow more for attacks on the king, flashy tactics and directness than 1. d4, which often ends up being more positional, long-term-strategical.. Of course there are many exceptions! There is no point in it for me to discuss it any further.

If I'm allowed though, I'll make some further generalizations. Replace 1. e4 with say Morphy and 1. d4 with Petrosian. In the diagram a few posts ago, it would be harder for a Morhpy-character to win than for a Petrosian character. Of course, they most likely would both win but that is not my point.

I think they both win equally easily. That position can probably also be won by tactics and attacks. But alot of players tend to go all-in with an attack there, instead of building up an attack slowly. They think that any sacrifice should work, and if they just move all pieces to that side of the board, the mate will follow. But that's where they go wrong. They neglect the rest of the board, and when the attack runs dead, they probably have a worse position.

So Morphy would probably look for a clean tactical win rather than just throw all pieces at white's king, and Petrosian will just see where white's positional weaknesses are, and use those to get an even more dominating position.

One must remember that a Grandmaster is a Grandmaster.
Lasker could care less if it was 1. e4 or d4. He would win.
In his generation 1.e4 (P-K4) was played in most of the games.
In his final years he could play 1.d4 (P-Q4) openings. (Moscow 35, and
Nottingham 36).
Capablanca made the switch as well.
Alekhine who allegedly played over 50,000 games (counting everything)
could care less.
Reuben Fine at the AVRO answered every game with White 1.e4, and answered every game with Black when confronted with 1. e4 with e5.
Yet he was a 1.d4 player.
Botvinnik as well did not care. He could alternate between 1. e4, 1.d4, or
1. Nf3.
For definition sake Grandmasters have been classified as "Classical Players", (Spassky, Fischer, Steinitz, Lasker and possibly Bronstein).
Hypermodern: Nimzovitch, Petrosyan, Reti, Tartakower,
and possibly Euwe.
But you never hear about 1.d4 (PQ4) players. Reshevsky,
Capablanca, Alekhine, Smyslov.
In one Batsford book (on Spassky) Spassky wrote that
one of the GMs told him to wait for an error.

There is a big misunderstanding about Morphy, in general.

Just because we all grew up learning Morphy's combinations, we all tended to classify him as a "tactical" player.

Indeed, he was great at tactics.
However, there were many players with comparable tactical flair at that time, the "romantic" time.

Where Morphy indeed stood higher than his contemporaries (before Steinitz) was the positional play:
whilst before him, people seemed to think that combinations could be generated at will by simply regrouping together a couple of pieces near the opponent's king, with Morphy, it becomes apparent that the combinations are generated by playing SOUND MOVES, according to SOUND PRINCIPLES, such as CENTER and DEVELOPMENT

This did not occur before.
So Morphy's tactics are the consequence of sound positional play.

I can imagine Morphy play 1.d4 just like Capablanca and Alekhine did.

An example of a more purely tactical-oriented player is Lasker: indeed, many times he makes ugly-looking moves (seemingly anti-positional) and survive thanks to some tactical point, just like today's computer softwares do....

I had a distinct feeling I would get this kind of reactions. I give up you fail to see my point. I was referring to what qualities of a chessplayer help the most in a given position.


Replies:
-They would both win. (no kidding?)

-Morphy could play positionally (he and every other GM known to mankind..)

-Grandmasters play 1.e4 and 1.d4 (the way a more positional type plays 1.e4 differs from.. never mind no one would understand..)

I'll leave it at that.