e4 e5 is bad

symmetry is always slightly better for white and most e4 e5 games are really symmetrical, so why play symmetrical if you can just play the sicilian, or the french, or the caro kann

E4 E5 is also EXTREMELY boring

I wouldn’t call it boring 🤔

I was just gonna post about this. As a 1.e4 player I have been having a very difficult time meeting 1...e5. It feels like all of white's options are either too boring/symmetrical (like the 4 knights game or giuocco piano) or too theoretical (like the ruy lopez) or too risky (gambits).

for itay.... seems like the scotch might work

for op... sicilian caro and french are also slightly better for white, and in what world is e4 e5 boring? the petroff?

agree

Who told you that symmetry is always better for white? Because there's a reason that the exchange French and Petrov and exchange Slav are super drawish. 1...e5 is the best way to fight for a draw with Black

Woah hold on there. People can still try to fight for a win in symmetrical structures. Especially the exchange French and Slav. Just because the pawn structure is symmetrical, doesn’t mean the game is a draw. 🤔

"Who told you that symmetry is always better for white?" literally everyone knows this, its better for white because white has the first move, and also you dont want to draw if you can, you want to win

But like, just because the starting position of e4, e5 is symmetrical doesn’t mean it will continue like it. Take for example d4, d5. It’s not symmetrical forever because black will have to play something else when white plays c4. The game will shift into something else.

What are you trying to say? Most people below an advanced/expert level cannot really squeeze the first move advantage that well since they make mistakes and inaccuracies. Not to mention that there is not a single response to e4 which guarantees black equality.

the best response to e4 is c5 because it gives you more chances in the longrun

While boringness is pretty subjective, saying that e4 e5 is boring is probably objectively incorrect. e5 is probably the most dynamic response to e4, since it leads to so many different openings, both passive and aggressive, both tactical and positional, and there’s something for everybody. The Italian, Ruy Lopez, Philidor, Bishop, Ponziani, King’s Gambit, Scotch, Petrov, Three Knights, Four Knights, Vienna, Center Game, Danish, and even some weird ones like the Gunderam and Wayward Queen.

By no means do you have to play e5 against e4, especially with other solid openings like the French (my personal favorite), Caro, Pirc, Alekhine, Nimzowitsch, Modern, etc, but it is most definitely not a boring opening, nor is it bad for black. You can play whatever you want but trying to say e5 is a bad response to e4 is objectively incorrect, as is saying it’s boring.

you havent even seen how fast im improving because im trying different openings

The real problem with e4 e5 is that Black has to make a concession after 2.Nf3

ive improved a lot after learning openings, you can definetly learn opening principles and openings at the same time, for example the qg, if you just play principled you win

How about d4 d5?

At the beginner level, I feel like them learning e4 e5 and then things like the Italian Game, or Ruy Lopez, or even better, the Botez Gambit, because its simpler other then openings like the Sicilian Defense because you got to know all the variations.

thats the common misunderstanding, when i say i play the sicilian it doesnt mean i know 20 moves of the rossolimo, it means that i can play the open and probably not instantly lose in the rossolimo, you dont need to study every line

What?! e4 e5 leads to some of the craziest, most dynamic, and sharp positions in the game of chess. Evans gambit, Fried Liver, Kings Gambit, Schliemann defense, Frankenstein-Dracula variation, Scotch gambit, Nakhmanson gambit, Stafford gambit, even the Karpov gambit in the Spanish, those all come from e4, e5