Because it gives you a centre pawn immediately that you can work off of, and I don’t think it’s a bad response to e4, although I am a d4 player.
1...e5 - statistically a bad opening
Sort:
e4 ... e5 is too difficult for many people here on chess.com and statistics taken from chess.com are completely meaningless.
On another level, among GMs, 1. e4 is statistically "not great".
1. e4 .... e5 is a top response. The Sicilian and the French are maybe the two other best responses. Caro-Kann is not so solid. Pirc is not great.
And anyone who says "opening theory is not important until 2000" is a bit of a fool.
2 days ago
0
#7
Optimissed wrote:
And anyone who says "opening theory is not important until 2000" is a bit of a fool.
It really isn't because your opponents aren't going to play the best moves. They play an odd move, like 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 c5 3.e3 Qb6 4.b3, you might as well throw theory out the window! You're on your own. White's move is not good, but opening theory won't tell you why!
ThrillerFan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
And anyone who says "opening theory is not important until 2000" is a bit of a fool.
It really isn't because your opponents aren't going to play the best moves. They play an odd move, like 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 c5 3.e3 Qb6 4.b3, you might as well throw theory out the window! You're on your own. White's move is not good, but opening theory won't tell you why!
Are you saying that people less than 2000 don't know opening theory? Actually, opening theory is indispensible above about 1200 and that's on chess.com. Opening theory cannot help but develop wherever intelligent or reasonably intelligent people play chess. Are you just appeasing the oiks with the +- buttons? 
I know c.c is something else.
OK I know you're saying that when one player leaves theory behind then both players have. But you don't have to be 2000 to play chess well. Many people like to follow theory to stay safe for a while and that can apply to both sides.
I wrote "And anyone who says "opening theory is not important until 2000" is a bit of a fool." It's so obvious that it also applies to ppl thinking it's wrong. Yes sure, many people on chess.com with blitz ratings of 2200 would be slaughtered in classical controls by someone else with a blitz rating of 1600. That's beside the point.
It is the best response to 1.e4 according to Stockfish, by far the most played under 2000 and the main recommendation for beginners by chess coaches. But practically, it scores much worse than any other reasonable first move by black.
for example based on chess.com explorer for 1000-2000 range (wins white/black):
e5 - 51/45
c5 - 48/48
d5 - 49/47
c6 - 48/48
even 1...a6 scores better...
Obviously, the main reason is better theoretical kowledge by white (which kind of goes against "opening theory is not important until 2000").
Why do you think 1...e5 is so popular despite its practical drawbacks, when 99% of payers never reach the level when its theoretical benefits starts paying off?