Is there any reason to open with 1.d4?

I'm not posting this forum topic to troll; as I know that 1.d4 is a solid, strong, and respectable opening.  The thing that I'm asking though is if it's worth using at all under 2000 level.  I'm a strong class B USCF player, but I still can't see why anyone at my level uses d4 over e4 as the advantages given by d4 are small enough that they don't make much of a difference, as opposed to 1. e4 which leads to extremely sharp games that generally emerge with a clear advantage for either side.  Basically, the question that I'm asking is, other than to have a larger repertoire, is there any need to try to play a deep positional d4 opening if you're not a VERY strong player?  In my opinion, it seems like there's no reason to play that way if the games are usually at the level where there are a few large blunders on every side, as the opening just seems to have too small of an edge for a class B player.   When I go to tournaments, I see players as low as 800 using Q-pawn, and I wonder if that's a good idea or if it's simply misguided.

I wonder that as well.  Moving the king pawn surely leads to the most moves possible for move 2 for white. 

You have a point, weak players should try to learn tactics.

-But you could find tactics in Qp openings too. I think it's best for beginners not to think to much about the current opening they are using.

They should think on good opening principles instead.

Then for each move they are playing they should (before they do the move) calculate enough to not make stupid one move blunders!

I think it's best for most players to play both: 1.e4 and 1.d4 Learn both!

What is wrong with trying to play positional chess?

The person who posted said so himself that there is 'large' blunders every few moves, then what is wrong with trying to playing positionally if you know your opponent is going to stuff up anyway?

Nothing wrong with that, but I wont help you much if you don't spot easy tactics.

-Step by step is best.

1.Tactics.

2.Strategy.

3.Never ever forget about tactics.

I'm not saying anything against positional chess.  All I'm saying is that I don't really think that players under 2000 (me included) are at the level where positional chess is as strong as tactical chess.

It's nothing to do with your rating, but why you loses your games... If you suck at tactics, study tactics, if you such at positional play.....

Evrybody knows you need to be good at both, there is no way to escape anny of them, you can't chose:

1. I don't like tactics so I play 1.d4 

2. I hate boring slow games, I love tactics, 1.e4

CHESS IS NOT THAT EASY!

Taking your point, which I think I agree with, I think us low rated players do follow the openings of the 2700 club. So I would say d4 is used today by low rated players cause it's fashionable. And players new to chess are learning the openings and trying everything.

Surely a player not far from 2000 can spot easy tactics?

Another point to make is that a game which starts positionally can explode in 20 moves or so (check out some of Kasparov's wins with 1.d4, even though no one can play like Kasparov below 2000). 

Averagepatzer also says that players rated 800 play 1.d4, perhaps that is going a bit too far, I think that players rated 800 should stick to 1.e4,and I agree with Averagepatzer, but if a Class B is playing the Colle, which the whole point of the opening is to attack the king, I see nothing wrong with that.

I improved a lot when I started playing d4. The funniest thing is always when Black tries to defend the gambit pawn:

You need to learn both, that's my point, you will get nowhere with just tactics or just positional play. 

Tactics and positional play goes hand in hand.

When did 1400 USCF equal a strong class B player?

Yes.  1... c5. 

One of the things that attracted me to 1.d4 is that the queen gambit system is relitively easy to learn. You know where the pawns go, where you are supposed to attack, and it is harder to get side-swiped with things you didn't prepare for. 1. e4 you study the Ruy or the Guicco Piano then he plays a Sicilain or a Dutch and you are all at sea. You study the Queen's Gambit and even if he plays a fiancetto system you still have a structure that you recognize.

If e4 is more likely to yield "a clear advantage for either side," then why is it better for white?  Your argument doesn't make a lot of sense.  

As I understand it, what distinguishes e4 from d4 is not that it gives white better chances of gaining and keeping an advantage, but that the first 10 or so moves tend to be more decisive for the outcome of the game.  If that suits your playing style, then play e4.  

I play d4 because I would rather develop first, and attack later.  Plans are more flexible, and you don't need to memorize as many lines against the Slav or Nimzo as you do against the Sicilian or French or Ruy Lopez.I have a relatively low rating, but I have had plenty of success with 1. d4.  The point of playing a particular opening is that it suits your playing style and your learning style.  

BTW Michail Tal played 1.d4 very often and he seemed to find tactics!

Also, not every move is going to win a piece, or be a mate in 4, so if all one knows is tactics, how does one play in a position like that, if not positionally?

The study of tactics must be accompanied by positional studies, or you will not know what to do most of the time.

It is like when one learns a new language, one studies vocabulary AND grammar.  To learn only one or the other is pointless.

All games contains tactics, but the boring (and weak) players behind them didn't spot it!

Let Rybka take a good look at your games, and you'll see that you missed some chances!

Another thought. A better reason to play 1.e4 than learning tactics is 1.e4 tends to lead to a  more open game. As almost all games reach a point where the position opens up, it is good to become comfortable in that type of game.

Not true.  The French and the Ruy Lopez are among the most congested openings you'll find.  And there are plenty of ways for either side to open up a game that starts with d4.  In general, what you do with your pawns has nothing to do with the first move of the game.  

If someone here is saying that e4 leads to "tactics" and d4 doesn't, that's obviously nonsense as well.  If you're playing chess, there are tactics.