Chewing your opponent's soul by not playing 1.e4!

Last time, I asked if I should stop playing 1.e4 - the comments were helpful. So far, I have been playing anything but 1.e4 in my "chess by email" games. I feel that when I win without playing 1.e4, my opponent will know that I won coz (I didn't play the strongest opening in the world!? Therefore...)

I think that will chew my opponent's soul. That makes me sad!

Would your soul be chewed if you lost to 1.c4 or 1.d4 or 1.b3?

No c4 and d4 are better than e4

agreed

Not at all! In fact, I cringe when I see 1.c4. Even thinking that 1.e4 is the "best opening ever" is absurd, in my opinion.

I don't like it when people open with either d4 or c4 against me. I prefer them playing e4, because I know a lot more about the lines in the openings that might follow after e4.

Nah, I lose equally well to all of them so it doesn't bother me at all.

It depends on your style.  Personally, I like closed games, so I play d4.  When I feel like playing a flank opening, I will play c4(or f4, though c4 is stronger).  When I feel like opening the center and getting straight to attacking with bishops, knights, queen, pawns, even rooks, I play e4.  So what do you like?  Open, Closed, Flank, maybe even irregular!

perform with your strengths, and work on your weaknesses until they become strengths.

 I always thought that my style was the 1.e4. I am not sure whether that was objectively true, or it was because that is what everybody played when I learned to play chess, and I idolized Fischer so much that I wanted to play 1.e4 all the time. However, other players that I really like, for example, Capablanca, Kasparov, and Alekhine played both 1.e4 and 1.d4 with a lot of success. I decided to go the 1.d4 route for several reasons. Two of the reasons are:

1 - I believe(d) people know how to play against 1.e4 than 1.d4, or when somebody loses to 1.e4, it is easier to pinpoint where one went wrong, than when you lose to 1.d4. It is easier to pinpoint a tactical error than a strategical error, generally speaking. Again, that's my belief.

2 - I thought by playing both 1.e4 and 1.d4, I would become a more "versatile" player than if I just restricted myself to just one of them. Since I played 1.e4 for almost 20 years, it was not too late to change and see what the other pawn had to offer! In the process, I would be rid of my "weakness" of not knowing how to play 1.d4 games.

Why are we discussing a thread posted more than 2 years ago?

I love to play irregular openings.  I think it throws a lot of opponents who are used to main lines!  That's why I love the Ware opening.  It's got possibilities and it suits my style as an original player!

 Yeah... why? </sarcasm>

Who brought this old forum back to life?

It's called a thread.

My bad.  It makes a big difference

Over 20,000 points and you still haven't really learned all that much..

I open with d4 but a lot of people prefer e4 and some give me stick for it. I find e4 very complex ... lots of different lines for White and Black but i find with d4 there are less? However, I probably prefer playing against e4 as black rather than d4 ... which is slightly odd! Perhaps that is cos i am not so good at playing QGD (Queens Gambit Declined).

I think this is where an opening repertoire comes into play.  Your soul cannot be chewed if you are prepared for something other than 1.e4.   

About chess in general, in particular just basic stuff. But that's what happens when you think you're right about everything, you can give up on your ambition of becoming "the highest rated player on chess.com". In this case stating that 1.d4 is simply "best" is absurd.

About your rating being higher than mine:

1. The rating that matters my BCF is miles higher than yours even at 140, which isn't anywhere near where my actual current strength is anyway since I took a break from OTB and took lessons etc. 

2. Everyone starts at 1200, you have no idea where my rating actually is.

3. As it turns out on this site I got it to 2283 on my old account after 33 games with 28 wins and 5 draws, beating you easily as well in the process. I could have definitely got past 2400 at least. 

Edit: Turns out you're not even on the BCF list. So you've now lied about having a USCF, FIDE and BCF rating..

Explain.