For beginners, 1.d4 is just as good as 1.e4. Prove me wrong.

Everyone says that beginners should play 1.e4 because it's open and tactical, but in reality it's only slightly more likely to become open and tactical than 1.d4, the difference is not big enough to warrant putting that much importance on this one single factor. The French is closed. The Caro-Kann is positional. The Spanish is both closed and positional, as is the mainline of the Italian, which is literally called the Giuoco Pianissimo, which means the very quiet game. 1.e4 e5 is called the "Open Game", but in my opinion that's a misnomer.

Proponents of 1.e4 say that beginners must fight for the center and try to occupy it with Pawns. I agree. But you can do that with 1.d4 too. You play 1.d4 2.c4 3.Nc3, and then 4.e4 if your opponent allows it, else e3 and maybe later you will be able to play e3-e4.

An advantage of 1.e4 over 1.d4 is that if you play 1.e4 you often get to play d4 on move 2, while if you play 1.d4 you generally get to play e4 only on move 4 or 5. This I agree with.

People say that White gets Pawns on e4 and d4 more frequently when he starts with 1.e4 than when he starts with 1.d4. This I disagree with.

Against 1.e4, 63% of the time beginners play 1...e5. In the mainline of the Spanish, you will only be able to play d4 on move 10. In the mainline of the Italian, it will take even longer, if it ever happens. After 1.d4 2.c4, beginners allow White to play e4 more frequently than strong players do. For example, after 1.d4 d5 2.c4, 18% of the time beginners play 2...Nf6, which allows 3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.e4.

In 1.e4, when you will play d4 Black will immediately liquidate the center by playing ...cxd4 or ...exd4, so you will only have two Pawns in the center for a very brief instant. If you play 1.d4 2.c4 3.Nc3 4.e4, you will be able to keep your Pawn center for a long time, you will be able to maintain your Pawn center as a long-term positional feature.

1.d4 allows you to choose between playing a system (by playing 2.Nf3 followed by anything other than 3.c4) or playing classical principled chess and fighting for center (by playing 2.c4 or 2.Nf3 3.c4).

1.d4 2.c4 and 1.d4 2.Nf3 3.c4 faithfully follow the principle "develop Knights before Bishops", as White almost always plays Nc3 and Nf3 before developing any other piece. 1.e4 follows this principle less faithfully, as the Four Knights is a second-rate opening (after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6, GMs play 3.Nc3 only 5.8% of the time).

People say that 1.e4 allows you to castle Kingside sooner than 1.d4. Okay. But White castles Kingside more frequently in 1.d4 than in 1.e4.

People say that a player must develop like the history of chess developed. What evidence is there to back up this psycho-historicist theory? None. Nada. Zilch. What is asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. If this theory was true, then beginners shouldn't start with classical sound openings like the Italian and the Spanish, no, they should first start with unsound romantic gambits. If this theory was true, then once you reach a certain level, you would have to switch to 1.c4 and 1.Nf3. If this theory was true, then you would need to completely abandon your repertoire and create a new one even if you are perfectly happy with your current repertoire. You are not prepared to do that, you are not prepared to follow the logical consequences of this theory, so you must reject this theory.

Beginners play 1.e4 67% of the time, but 1.d4 only 20% of the time. Their opponents will be much better prepared for 1.e4 than for 1.d4. 1.d4 will have surprise value.

I'm not saying that for beginners 1.d4 is better than 1.e4. I'm saying that these two moves are about equally good, and so the old adage that beginners must play 1.e4 is wrong. Each of these two moves has advantages and disadvantages over the other.

People are assuming a one-size-fits-all answer. People are assuming that there is one single opening move that is objectively better than all the other moves for ALL beginners.

People are assuming that maximizing long-term improvement is all that matters. People are so focused on maximizing long-term improvement that they neglect all other goals. The most important question when choosing your openings is not "what are the openings that maximize long-term improvement?" but "what openings do you enjoy playing?" and "which openings best fit your own personal preferences?". If you adopt openings that you hate playing, you will end up quitting chess, and so you won't improve, even if these openings are supposedly the ones that maximize long-term improvement.

Yes but name an open d4 opening (other than the Gruenfeld). Also, it is possible to play ANY chess opening in a positional manner (other than a gambit). Both e4 and d4 openings can be open or closed, positional or tactical, but it is much easier to play open, tactical openings in 1.e4.

Vladimir Kramnik recommends e4 to beginners.. His reasoning? It leads to a wider variety of pawn structures, and is more tactical... and that's how the Russian chess school taught him. 
So he's a world champion... and the russian chess school produced some of the greatest players in history. Shouldn't the onus be on you to prove him wrong, rather than the reverse? Anyway... skimming through your post I'll make a few small points (it's too long to read in its entirety)

1) the goal of recommending a beginner an opening isn't really to get them wins, it's mainly to teach them the game. 
2) there's no way of knowing how a random person will feel about an opening when you recommend them one, and we're talking about general recommendations here, so this just wouldn't effect my recommendation... however, if you hate 1. e4 you probably are going to hate chess and should probably just quit while you're ahead
3) e4 (especially e4e5, played in most games at low level) leads to open and tactical games significantly more often than d4, not slightly 
4) e4 is not usually played on move 4-5 after 1. d4, it usually comes around move 8-9 
5) Your argument is incoherent... it begins by claiming both e4 and d4 lead to open / tactical games with comparable frequency... but then it goes on to describe how d4 often leads to positional games, and how this is preferrable.

There's nothing forcing white to play the ruy lopez, some people argue the italian or scotch are better for beginners... but regardless, even in the Ruy Lopez main line (one line out of a thousand after e4) one slight inaccuracy and the position breaks down into tactical continuations. In d4 openings often a player will secure a positional advantage and over time convert that to a win... e4 and d4 do not play the same way. They just simply don't.

____________

In your argument you go down many rabbit holes... you question whether the line will usually develop knights before bishops, or whether the king castles a move earlier, or whether both d4 and e4 get played, blahdi blah blah.... none of this is necessary, the matter is actually quite simple: before you learn positional chess you should learn basic concepts like tactics, central control, and piece development. This is because you can't understand a position without understanding its underlying tactics / the other basics. Hence... you should start with e4. Not difficult!

"Vladimir Kramnik recommends e4 to beginners.. [...] So he's a world champion... [...] Shouldn't the onus be on you to prove him wrong, rather than the reverse?"

This is an appeal to authority (aka an argument from authority). It's a logical fallacy. Especially since there is no consensus among GMs on whether or not 1.e4 is best for beginners. Some GMs say that 1.e4 is best, and some GMs say that 1.e4 and 1.d4 are equal. You just cherry-picked one GM who says the former and you ignored the GMs who say the latter, and I could just as easily do the opposite, but I won't, because I don't want to use fallacious arguments. The former do seem to outnumber the latter, but this might just be because the former are much more vocal than the latter. Even if the former truly did outnumber the latter, this couldn't be taken to be a proof that they are right, as this would be an argumentum ad populum, an appeal to the majority, another logical fallacy.

Vladimir Kramnik is a poor choice of authority figure. Vladimir Kramnik accuses everyone of cheating. Must we also believe him about this because he's a world champion? Authorities can be wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.

The onus of proof (aka the burden of proof) is not on the one who rejects the authority but on the one who makes the claim. It is the supporters of 1.e4 who are making the claim. The claim that 1.e4 is best for beginners. I am merely rejecting their claim.

____________

"4) e4 is not usually played on move 4-5 after 1. d4, it usually comes around move 8-9"

You can play e4 on move 4 in the KID, on move 5 in the Grunfeld, on move 6 in the Benoni, on move 7 in the Benko, on move 3 in the QGA, on move 4 in the Marshall Defense, on move 5 in the QGD Vienna, on move 10 in the Slav Accepted, between moves 4 and 9 in the Semi-Slav.

Beginners often don't fight for the center and don't prevent White from playing e4, so White can play an early e4 more frequently against beginners than against strong players.

Even though they won't get to play it on move 2, it is still easy for beginners to play e4, because the first few moves are simple, easy, natural, and kinda automatic. White will generally play 1.d4 2.c4 3.Nc3 (against everything other than ...c5, ...e5 and ...dxc4), and then White will often be able to play e4.

@Skynet another thing that you messed up is you provided a list of when you can play e4 quickly in d4 openings. Note, however, that most of the openings you provided are the Indian openings, which few beginners actually play. The following database is players on lichess rated from 400-1200.

There is no way to look at all games on chess.com (Explorer is a master database), though. However, let me list off the openings you provided. KID is almost always an extremely closed openings where pawn chains rule the board, though there are other variations (also usually very closed). The Gruenfeld is very rare at anything but the highest level, due the reams of theory involved, as well as the activity White gets. Even there the position can often become positional. The Benoni allows e4 quite early, but on the other hand it's hard to claim that the Benoni is an open, aggressive opening for White. In the QGA, White usually wants to play e3 because e4 overextends the central pawns, and they can soon come under attack. That said, the QGA is one of the most popular replies by beginners against d4. QGD Vienna is Black playing ...dxc4, which is basically a QGA but later - that said, I haven't studied the QGD Vienna in a very long time. Slav Accepted again has the same problem - you are only providing openings where Black takes on c4 or does something else to just let White play e4. What if Black just keeps the pawn on d5? I think that is much more common. Semi-Slav is the one where you build the triangle on e6,d5 and c6, right? There after playing e4 White is forced to play a gambit to even have a sliver of an edge (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e4 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Bb4+ 6.Bd2). What if Black plays the proper QGD or Slav, which combined are more popular than the QGA? Then what? You talk of logical fallacies, but you yourself skewed data by only providing openings where Black doesn't keep the pawn on d5 and captures somewhere.

There's just 2 gaping little holes in your response here. 
1) In the title of the thread you make the claim for the debate. By making a claim and saying "prove me wrong" you've established yourself as correct a-priori, and that's precisely what an authority does, i.e. you presume to have some authority to do this. What I've done is questioned your authority and suggested a better alternative. Meaning I did not actually establish the argument from authority to begin with, it is already there via your own statement (and you aren't any kind of authority, fyi). 
2) it's not merely Kramnik we're talking about, it's the entire Russian chess school... the number of famous players that school has produced are numerous, and you know all their names.

Anyway, there's plenty of other argument you can focus on than this one, I even provided you with multiple arguments- but no, this case is much weaker than you seem to believe - if you actually read the wikipedia page on 'argument from authority' you'll see it carves out space for recognizing expert authorities. It has to do this... the fallacy would hardly make any sense in the real world otherwise. But you know, not all decisions you make will be based on rigorous scientific or mathematical proofs - that kind of proof is not always available... sometimes you just have to actually.... use common sense and listen to people. Of course you don't have to blindly trust what people say, you can still cross-reference it against your own understanding, and if you have a reason to ignore the authority so be it... but I dispensed with your reasons, they were myopic things like "do we move bishops before knights?", and I gave you a response.
Anyway, to suggest we don't trust authorities, or use their experience / opinions as a starting point for forming ours... we do, all the time. And it would be handicapping / very duncey not to. Did you invent all of your openings...? You trust the engine to give you the correct moves, correct? You trust the players of the past who have developed these openings. You trust authorities in countless ways... since I want to improve as a player I'm not going to be ignoring information of this sort - you can if you like, though.

But again, the entire premise of the conversation is that you have some sort of authority to establish your claim, you don't.

Keep trying!

In addition to what @ytroisky has said, I don't know what you think opportunity to play e4 on move 4 vs 9 actually proves about beginners playing d4 vs e4, again this is just a giant rabbit hole since... a far better way to judge an opening is by just describing how it plays, describing the actual main lines of it. I fail to see how you are saying anything insightful about 1. d4 as an opening system with this. I have learned nothing from this.

Anyway, you listed a bunch of sidelines here to prop up your point - the QGD vienna is played in 6% of QGD games, assuming white is even going for the three knights setup... and the slav - you're not going to be playing e4 on move 4 except maybe in a very specific exchange slav line which isn't even great or common, or vs. one of triangles which isn't that common either... furthermore, why are you expecting the beginner to know all these sharp e4 gambit lines? In a typical d4 game you'll be building up to e4, that's how the positions play naturally, and it'll come around move 8-9... and really the entire game will be this slow positional sort of play. Which no, is not tactical and not what is usually recommended for beginners... as I explained already (you conveniently ignored) you can't understand a chess position without seeing its underlying tactics.

Both of you are strawmanning me. I never said any of the things you think I said. And I don't edit my posts multiple times like you do. Are you two done editing?

____________

I never claimed that after 1.d4 White will always be able to play e4.

After 1.d4, White will be able to play e4 most of the time, but far from all of the time, and this is not the end of the world.

You are committing the perfect solution fallacy. Just because something is not perfect doesn't mean that we must reject it. Just because an opening doesn't always lead to the type of position that we want doesn't mean that we must reject this opening.

You can't always get both d4 and e4 in. You can't always get an open tactical game. You can't always follow all the principles. Regardless of whether you start with 1.d4 or 1.e4 or anything else. White can't always get everything he wants. Chess is a two-player game. Black also gets a say.

____________

@ibrust:

I never claimed that I was an authority.

I don't think you even understand what an authority is. An authority is someone who has credentials, such as degrees or titles, such as the GM title or the World Champion title. An authority can be someone who went to a prestigious school, such as "the Russian chess school". An authority is someone who is regarded as an authority, and no one could possibly view any of us as authorities. The only person who views me as an authority is you, ibrust. If you somehow thought that I claimed to be an authority, it might be because my arguments were so strong that you sub-consciously assumed that I must be an authority. I will take it as a compliment really.

Just because I stated my opinion does not mean that I claim to be an authority. You don't need to be an authority to speak your opinions.

I never said I had any credentials. I never said I went to any chess school. Instead I gave many arguments against the claim that beginners must play 1.e4 and many counter-arguments to the usual arguments of the proponents of 1.e4. So I never used any argument from authority.

You are mixing up the onus of proof and the argument from authority. These two things have nothing to do with each other. As I said, "the onus of proof is not on the one who rejects the authority but on the one who makes the claim". The claim is the famous old adage that beginners must play 1.e4. If one hasn't seen any convincing evidence for this claim, he shouldn't accept this claim, even if he hasn't seen any evidence against this claim either. If one feels that the evidence for and the evidence against are both roughly equally strong, he shouldn't accept this claim. This is what the onus of proof means.

In my first post, I only applied the onus of proof to just one single argument: the argument that says that a player must develop like the history of chess developed. But you decided to apply the onus of proof to the whole debate. And it was a poor decision on your part, because the onus of proof does not increase the probability that one will accept the old adage that beginners must play 1.e4, rather it decreases it.

I never claimed that it is always irrational to rely on authority figures. There are two kinds of argument from authority: a fallacious kind and a non-fallacious kind. The one you used is a fallacious kind, because as I said, "there is no consensus among GMs on whether or not 1.e4 is best for beginners". The expression "appeal to authority" is generally reserved for the fallacious kind.

Well again I still don't understand your obsession with playing both d4 and e4 in as many games as possible... if you really want that - play the scotch, you will get d4 and e4 every game, but I will repeat that 1. d4 leads to more positional games by and large, and therefor it is not what I would recommend for people who don't understand basic tactics yet. That's about as complicated as I feel it needs to be.

No, you're confusing onus of proof (which may be rooted in skepticism, but could also be based on common knowledge - established by authorities) with your own positive claim about what the onus is... and you're confusing form and content.... A formal fallacy is a flaw in the structure of an argument... an informal fallacy is an error related to the content of the argument. While it's true you aren't a legitimate authority - and I would never suggest you are (infact I have pointed out that you aren't multiple times), your claim is formally the same as an argument from authority. Infact your argument is worse than an argument from authority, it would be stronger if you had some actual authority. However, the fact random dunces have no expertise rarely prevents them from speaking in ignorance about topics they clearly do not understand, as is clearly the case in this instance. But yes, when you assert a claim is true a-priori you do assume this pretense - authority takes on this pretense of being correct a-priori, that's what characterizes it.

Again, the Russian chess school is probably the most respected and renowned chess school in the history of chess - as far as authorities on how to teach beginners chess go I don't think you'll find a place with a better reputation or track record. No, your argument fails on this front as well.

Keep trying!

If what you said was true, then whenever someone says that he does not believe in a claim and says that the onus of proof is on those who make this claim, he must be claiming to be an authority. For example, if the followers of some religion claim that their religion is true, and you ibrust say something like "I reject this religion because there's no convincing evidence for it, the onus of proof is on the followers of this religion", then you ibrust must be claiming to be an authority on religions. But no. In reality, no one will see you as an authority on religions, because you don't have any degrees in theology or religious studies.

No, because there's a difference between maintaining skepticism and making a positive claim... , i.e. what you've done here. Again read the title, you make a positive claim and then challenge anyone to prove you wrong - the difference here is plain as day.

This is interesting actually... you've fallen into the trap alot of atheistic materialists fall into, basically speaking as if skepticism is a kind of doubtful certainty. Infact skepticism is a state of uncertainty, it makes no positive assumption whatsoever. The statement "d4 is just as good as e4" is a positive claim.

Although atheism in North Korea takes on a whole new meaning... are you saying you don't actually believe Kim Jung Un is God? I wonder if you are in danger of being rounded up if you say the wrong thing in this conversation...

Keep trying

You've finally said one true thing, so I'm going to focus on that, and ignore your nonsense about authority (which I have already thoroughly debunked).

It's true that I don't just reject the claim that 1.e4 is best for beginners, I also make a claim of my own: that 1.d4 is roughly just as good as 1.e4.

I didn't say that the onus of proof was on those who didn't believe in my claim. As I said: "In my first post, I only applied the onus of proof to just one single argument: the argument that says that a player must develop like the history of chess developed." You're the one who wants to apply the onus of proof on the debate as a whole. No matter whether you try to apply the onus of proof on the old adage that 1.e4 is best for beginners or on the clash between my claim and the claim that 1.e4 is best, it will never end in the favor of the proponents of 1.e4.

The default position would be to assume that which first move beginners start with does not make a significant difference, all 20 first moves are equally good for beginners. I reject this position, because I do think that the proponents of 1.e4 have some strong arguments: 1.e4 is objectively a very strong move, 1.e4 follows the general openings principles of fighting for center by occupying it with Pawns, castling Kingside, developing Knights before Bishops. But these arguments also apply to 1.d4. Which is why I claim that 1.e4 and 1.d4 are roughly equal. When we compare my claim and the claim that 1.e4 is best, my claim is closer to the default position. So between these two claims, the onus of proof is still on the claim that 1.e4 is best for beginners.

But frankly, what I really want to do is attack the old adage that beginners must play 1.e4. And when we ask whether the old adage is true or false, it is self-evident that the onus of proof falls on the proponents of 1.e4.

The title of the thread was going to be "The old adage that beginners must play 1.e4 is wrong", but I changed it at the last minute because saying "Prove me wrong" would give me more replies. My previous thread "1...e5 is better than 1...e6 and 1...c5, prove me wrong" had 85 replies: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/1-e5-is-better-than-1-e6-and-1-c5-prove-me-wrong

If you pick a random religion among the thousands that exist, you don't think "oh, I'm uncertain about whether this religion is true or false". No. You feel certain that this religion is false. You are not in "a state of uncertainty" about whether the Flying Spaghetti Monster (the god of Pastafarianism) exists or not. You feel certain that he does not exist. Even if you might not have any evidence against his existence. Because that's the default position. The onus of proof falls on the followers of this religion.

It is not very useful to spend so much time talking about the onus of proof... The onus of proof only applies if both sides have equally strong arguments, or no convincing arguments at all. But almost all of the time, one finds the arguments of one side much more persuasive than those of the other side.

One of the arguments for 1.e4 that people often give is that beginners should follow the general opening principle that says "occupy the center with Pawns".

1.e4 encourages sharp, open, and tactical positions, which helps improve your vision and attacking the king. 1.d4 is more solid, closed, and positional but it seems more of just memorizing moves at that point, such as the London, the Colle, and the Stonewall Attack, which may perform just as well, does not improve your chess as throwing yourself into a new position to really learn new things. Seeing the same line in the London? Where is the growth in that?

1.d4 slows a beginner's chess growth. It takes them longer to lose which may make them think they're doing better, but they aren't.

My 2 cents. I think d4 results in more positions that are similar, when compared to e4 and it's "wider variety of pawn structures." I mean, it is easier to do your own thing after d4 IMHO, than with e4 where different strategies arise from the many options available to Black.

For a beginner, if they get comfortable with d4 positions, there might be a reluctance to explore e4. And when playing White, I do feel it is easier to control the level of tactical fireworks in a d4 opening.

"The default position would be to assume that which first move beginners start with does not make a significant difference, all 20 first moves are equally good for beginners. "

No, it would not be. Again, the default position would be to make no assumption; to maintain uncertainty as to whether one move or another made any significance difference. That is the only position which makes any sense given a lack of any evidence or reason to the contrary... We seem to be getting at a very deep flaw in your thought process, where you're so often looking for a comfy assumption of doubt to cling onto... The only real function of this is it allows you to feel reduced anxiety / allows you to think less, it's grounded in your limited perception of reality, but reality exists outside the scope of your perception.

"You are not in "a state of uncertainty" about whether the Flying Spaghetti Monster (the god of Pastafarianism) exists or not. You feel certain that he does not exist. Even if you might not have any evidence against his existence. Because that's the default position. The onus of proof falls on the followers of this religion."

No, you do not doubt with certainty the existence of this spaghetti monster due to lack of material evidence for his existence, you doubt him with certainty because the very concept of a flying spaghetti monster makes no rational sense. On its very face it's an absurd, nonsense concept. For example, spaghetti is not an organic thing so how can an organism be made up of non-organic matter like this...? And how can something material precede the creation of the universe, i.e. matter...? It's a nonsense concept, and obviously not one you've thought very deeply about.

A much better analogy would be if I were to ask you whether aliens exist somewhere in the universe. Because the concept of an alien is not irrational, and can't be immediately dismissed on that basis, like your horrible analogy can be. For example, if you were to argue that aliens do not exist because... of some default assumption that they don't exist which we must maintain - your argument is just patently absurd on its face, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. The best argument you could make would be a rational argument, based on probability and the design of the universe - but if that argument failed you could only fall back on uncertainty. Because you do not know whether aliens exist somewhere in the universe, that is the bottom line and the reality of it - any comfy default assumption you prefer to cling to, in order to reduce your anxiety, is just that... a coping mechanism.

Now, the way that belief in a monotheistic God differs from both your flying spaghetti monster example, and from polytheistic beliefs which presume to explain the origin of existence, is it's based on an underlying coherent metaphysics and transcendentalist philosophy, and therefor the concept is not immediately dismissible through reason.

"If you pick a random religion among the thousands that exist, you don't think "oh, I'm uncertain about whether this religion is true or false". No. You feel certain that this religion is false."

No, I actually have no such certainty, because I cannot reject a thing before I have comprehended it, that is just impossible. Because it isn't my superficial notion of what some tribes religious belief is that I'd need to reject, it's their notion - they're the ones who believe the thing. And infact, in many cases (though certainly not all) when you study some seemingly bizarre polytheistic beliefs carefully what you'll find is the beliefs were more symbolic and representational than you thought, don't mean what you initially thought they did, and when interpreted properly have certain grains of truth, or sometimes aren't even controversial in their meaning. For example... if a tribe develops a pantheistic religion that describes how they interact with nature, if they revere certain species because maybe that species position in the food chain signals abundance for their tribe, or something like this - that's actually a rational belief, it's not even very controversial. On the other hand, if they belief Quetzacotle created the universe... you'd need to do some digging into their symbology to interpret this accurately, but if after having done so it's clear they mean this very litterally - well then yes, you reject the belief - but not due to some default assumption, due to the belief being irrational. Again, how can some material being precede the very creation of matter? It's irrational.

Keep trying

"you're so often looking for a comfy assumption of doubt to cling onto... The only real function of this is it allows you to feel reduced anxiety / allows you to think less"

Again, I'm not the one who brought up the onus of proof. You did. In the first post, I thought that my arguments were so strong that I didn't even bother mentioning that the onus of proof is on the proponents of 1.e4.

.

"Again, the default position would be to make no assumption; to maintain uncertainty as to whether one move or another made any significance difference. That is the only position which makes any sense given a lack of any evidence or reason to the contrary..."

You are contradicting yourself. At first you were saying that the onus of proof is on me, not on the proponents of 1.e4, because they have Kramnik on their side (an authority), so their position is the default one. Now you say that the default position is to maintain uncertainty. In this onus tennis that we're playing, at first you were saying that the ball was in my court, but now you say that the ball sits precisely on top of the net. You bring up the onus of proof, but then you change your position on it, so there is no point in continuing this discussion any further. Let's stop with this onus game.

.

"No, you do not doubt with certainty the existence of this spaghetti monster due to lack of material evidence for his existence, you doubt him with certainty because the very concept of a flying spaghetti monster makes no rational sense. On its very face it's an absurd, nonsense concept. For example, spaghetti is not an organic thing so how can an organism be made up of non-organic matter like this...? And how can something material precede the creation of the universe, i.e. matter...?"

The Flying Spaghetti Monster was just one example among an infinite number of possible examples. There are an infinite number of gods, and you feel certain that none of them exists (well except perhaps for one of them, if you're not an atheist). It can't be because you've pondered about each of them and looked at the arguments for each of them, because that would take you an infinite amount of time, since there are an infinite number of them.

.

"A much better analogy would be if I were to ask you whether aliens exist somewhere in the universe."

It would be valid to make an analogy between the questions "do aliens exist?" and "is there one move that is significantly better for beginners than all the others?", because one could maybe make the case that the prior probability for the answer being yes is 50% (I think he would still be wrong, but his case would not be without merit). But it is not valid to make an analogy between the questions "do aliens exist?" and "is 1.e4 the best move for beginners?", because even if we assumed, just for the sake of the argument, that there was one move that was significantly better for beginners than all the others (an assumption which I believe is false), the prior probability for each move would be 5% (because there are 20 first moves, and 100% divided by 20 equals 5%), which is much lower than 50%. The prior probability for aliens is much higher than the prior probability for 1.e4.

.

"if you were to argue that aliens do not exist because... of some default assumption that they don't exist which we must maintain - your argument is just patently absurd on its face, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise."

You don't understand what the onus of proof is. The onus of proof is not an argument. The onus of proof is that we should assume one side to be true by default IF the other side doesn't have convincing arguments. The keyword is IF. It would be completely pointless for one side to say that the onus of proof is on the other side if that other side had provided convincing arguments. If you truly believed that your side has convincing arguments for 1.e4, then you would stop talking about the onus of proof, and you would instead focus on presenting and defending these arguments. If your side brings convincing arguments, then it won't matter anymore that the onus of proof was on your side, because your side would have fulfilled its obligation to prove its claim.

You haven't heard that in science, "it's never aliens". The medias often say that this or that thing could be because aliens. For example, Oumuamua could be an alien spaceship, if the luminosity of a star varies abnormally it could be because it is surrounded by a Dyson sphere or a Dyson swarm or some other kind of alien megastructure. But scientists don't say this. Scientists always consider that the alien explanation is false until proven true. And the alien explanation always ends up getting refuted eventually.

How can you prove that aliens exist? You would just have to bring one single photograph of on an alien, or give us the exact coordinates of where we can observe an alien. How can I prove that aliens don't exist? I would have to photograph every square inch of every planet in the universe (and there are billions of billions). It's impossible. Therefore, the onus of proof is on you, not on me. A rational person should not believe that aliens exist until he sees the proof that aliens exist.

.

Authority, the onus of proof, religions, gods, and now aliens! What's next? Hitler? If we continue like this, we will soon reach the Godwin point. This discussion contributes nothing to the debate about whether 1.e4 is best for beginners. It distracts from the debate. It is off topic. So let's stop this discussion here. Let's get back on topic.

@ibrust @Skynet I just want to note that this debate was supposed to be about chess, and at this point you have both just started personally attacking each other and arguing about 'onus of proof' and flying spaghetti monsters. However, @Skynet , I would like to say that the prospect of aliens existing was a supposed improvement on your analogy (which made no sense), and as such you have no right to blame @ibrust for being off topic. I'm not trying to offend you, I'm just noting down that your comment was rude.

Also, about the onus of proof. @Skynet , there are many things in the universe that we assume real. We have no real proof that they are true, but we assume that they exist. How do we know that at some point in space there isn't just a huge wall with a bunch of white dots drawn on it? (Though there the onus of proof would be on me to prove that). But in the case of 'onus of proof', what are negative numbers? How are you going to count negative sheep? Note that I'm not trying to offend anyone. I'm just asking a question.