"There is no such thing as a 'best opening.' Each player should choose an opening that attracts him. Some players are looking for a gambit as White, others for Black gambits. Many players that are starting out (or have bad memories) want to avoid mainstream systems, others want dynamic openings, and others want calm positional pathways. It’s all about personal taste and personal need.
For example, if you feel you’re poor at tactics you can choose a quiet positional opening (trying to hide from your weakness and just play chess), or seek more dynamic openings that engender lots of tactics and sacrifices (this might lead to more losses but, over time, will improve your tactical skills and make you stronger)." - IM Jeremy Silman (January 28, 2016)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/opening-questions-and-a-dream-mate
Caro-Kann vs. French
@kindaspongey My opinion too!
"There is no such thing as a 'best opening.' Each player should choose an opening that attracts him. Some players are looking for a gambit as White, others for Black gambits. Many players that are starting out (or have bad memories) want to avoid mainstream systems, others want dynamic openings, and others want calm positional pathways. It’s all about personal taste and personal need.
For example, if you feel you’re poor at tactics you can choose a quiet positional opening (trying to hide from your weakness and just play chess), or seek more dynamic openings that engender lots of tactics and sacrifices (this might lead to more losses but, over time, will improve your tactical skills and make you stronger)." - IM Jeremy Silman (January 28, 2016)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/opening-questions-and-a-dream-mate
Yes, there is no such thing as a "best" opening. All openings have warts. For example, against 1.e4, 1...e5 weakens the a2-g8 diagonal, and hence f7. 1...c5 gives up control of d5. 1...e6 blocks the c8-bishop, etc.
But while there is no best opening, the number of good openings is limited. If 1...e5, 1...c5, 1...e6, etc have warts, 1...h5 or 1...f5 are cancers!
After read most of posts, i more and more believe that chess has two major "points". Technical and mental. It is obvious for me that white has always advantage (after all plays first and set the tone). If we were equal machines, it should be win for white all the time. But that advantage can be equalized/turned with a good black defense. That can be done by perfect play, 20 deep opening moves, studied by a dozen GM, that slowly gives some edge to black. Or because the opening is outside white players domain and the moves are not perfect. Well, i don't know your level, maybe at very high ratings like IM or GM it is less true, but for the most of us, the best white moves or black moves for my opponent are the one i'm not familiar with. I'm now trying a little 1.g4 (grob's attack) and i'm archiving a lot more wins with lower level rating players that with my common 1.d4 usual opening. Why? It's is worst by all means, but the number of my opponent blunders are... Well, let's say in 20 moves the game is over. They are mentally broken at 6/7 moves. So, when we have black... If you want to go technical you go 1.e5. It is the most studied and solid defense. Then maybe go spanish or italian. If you want to surprise a little, maybe scotch or russian. Then you have CK and French. If you want to go technical, "perhaps" CK is more solid. But it is simplier to play against french or CK as white? For me, as white, i don't like to play french. So, as black, i prefer to play french. Of course, years playing same openings, if i tried CK now i'd play awfully, simply because i have no experience. Playing french, i know the positions very well, and i feel well playing it, even with less space, white iniciative and so on. I think it is most a matter of style, and put your opponent out of confort zone than being the "best" technical defences. Probably the really best move is 1.e4. Even sicilian original point was surprise the opponent. Nowadays it is so studied that it turned to a deep (maybe deepest along with spanish) technical defence.