Why do masters open 1.d4 more often than 1.c4? Why do masters open 1.d4 more often than they open with the English 1.c4?

STATISTICS

According to 365chess.com, 1.d4 is five times as common. Moreover, even if one admits R&eacute;ti's 1.Nf3 as an English variant (or vice versa), counting R&eacute;ti and the English together as a single opening family, 1.d4 remains twice as common.

According to the aforementioned source, in master play, White scores slightly better (though indeed almost exactly the same) with 1.c4 as with 1.d4. R&eacute;ti's 1.Nf3 fares slightly worse.

MOTIVE

I ask because, in my own games, the English opening wins for White more than 1.d4 does. That is, I win more with 1.c4 as White and, as Black, probably lose more when 1.c4 is played against me. My strength being a little below FIDE 1300, my games would hardly interest you, so I will refrain from burdening the question with patzer's samples of my own play. However, if the statistics are credited, masters perceive comparative virtues in 1.d4 I do not yet see; whereas, from my limited perspective, 1.c4 just looks like the better move insofar as it leaves Black with three main options that all seem slightly weak:


Black can let White play a reversed Sicilian, granting an extra tempo to the reversed Sicilian queenside attack;
Black can transpose to a Queen's Gambit Declined or a Slav, only with fewer options for Black; or
Black can symmetrically play 1...c5, allowing White the advantages symmetrical openings generally bring.


A fourth option occurs:


Black can respond to 1.c4 by playing one of the Indian systems. This seems no weaker than playing Indian against 1.d4 but, as far as I can see, seems no stronger, either.


I can see that 1.d4 is not a bad move, but isn't 1.c4 just a better one?

A GRANDMASTER'S OPINION

Paul van der Sterren, a grandmaster, writes that 1.c4 and 1.Nf3 "betray a rather more moderate attitude [than does 1.d4]. While not as yet physically occupying any central squares, White does start taking control over them. White prepares for a fight in the center but does not want to be the one to take the first step."

Van der Sterren writes as though the factors he mentions might be disadvantages. Are they disadvantages, though? And how moderate is 1.c4, really? In my limited experience, 1.c4 seems fairly aggressive in actual play&mdash;more aggressive than the Ruy Lopez, for example, at least in games I play.

Of course, the grandmaster will be right and the patzer (me) must be wrong, but for what reason?

Indeed, why do masters open 1.d4 more often than 1.c4?
This has nothing to do with 1.d4 being an objectively better move than 1.c4. The moves are just about as good as one another, and sometimes even transpose as you've noted. 

But 1.d4 was historically considered to be one of the two best opening moves (together with 1.e4) for a very long time, and it is more in line with the basic opening principles that beginners are typically taught. 

So I'd reckon that it comes down to more players being introduced to 1.d4 early on in their chess career than 1.c4, coupled with the fact that old habits die hard (even for chessplayers).

However, one point that speaks in favour for 1.d4 over 1.c4 is that 1.d4 hinders black from playing 1...e5. You've noted that 1.c4, e5 is a reverse Sicilian, but I think that it is important to remember that the Sicilian is an opening that Black chooses to enter. In the opening Black is fighting for equality, and this is the case for the Sicilian as well, so saying that 1.c4, e5 is an improved version of it for White is basically just another way of saying that White is fighting for an advantage when playing it. But this is just what you'd expect from any good opening for White.

I'd go so far as to say that this way of arguing for a move is a fallacy in some sense, since it could be used to try and justify almost any first move for White as the best one (for instance, 1.Nf3 must be very strong since 1.Nf3, d5 is a reverse Nimzo/King's/Queen's/Bogo/whatever Indian defence and thus comes with an extra tempo as compared with the normal Indian defences, which are considered to be good for black). I'm almost tempted to name this way of  reasoning "The Reverse Sicilian Fallacy" for future use, since I've seen it more than once when commentators try to describe the virtues of 1.c4.