Is 1...e6 a good opening for beginners?

I think that the french isn't the best to start off. I learnt c5 first and got my first rating performance purely due to the sicilian

The French is far better than the Sicilian  to start off. You can't just 'learn' 1... c5. Even some expert players cant do it in a lifetime.

1...e6 can work for the beginning chess player. I have, 1...e6: A Solid Repertoire against 1.d4 and 1.e4 by Nigel Davies, on order.

GM Nigel Davies also produced an instructional video titled 1...d6 Universal. 1...d6 can be played against 1.e4, 1.d4 and 1.c4, although with 1.c4, Nigel recommends an adjustment to the move order by playing 1...e5, followed by 2...d6.

Since watching the video, my win percentage with Black has gone way up after opening with 1...d6. It works. 

Nigel Davies makes the point that playing 1...d6 enables one to focus on ideas and plans, rather than the memorization of many different opening lines.

So, with Black, I can focus on the principles of play, as opposed to learning the Sicilian or the Nimzo Indian, as examples.

I highly recommend Nigel's DVD's for the beginning chess player. I will own five and, his teaching is easy to understand.

With White, I open with 1.d4. I've heard too many times the importance of opening with 1.e4 for the beginning chess player, as 1.e4 leads to more tactical games than 1.d4.

Is this true, and why? 

Last, waiting until a rating of 1800+ to learn opening theory? I disagree. Even if it's the best way to go, I won't live that long, having started chess at age 50.

I think someone can get to Master level knowing just 1 or 2 openings. As long a they have good tactical vision they will make up their opening disadvantage in the middlegame. But memorizing openings is often pretty useful as you don't fall into those opening traps :) and it will help your middlegame strategical and positional understanding.

Not against others of equal (master) strength. If they come out of the opening with a disadvantage, it will be an uphill battle sometimes even to draw.

 Play open games, learn tactics, then slowly evolve after you know what you like best.

If you start with high level positional openings you'll lose many games witout knowing what hitted you, so you'll learn little.

Learn to walk before you try to run...

TYhat's my point, I dont know anything about the Sicilian. And with your 1900 rating, if you think you do, you are delusional.

Thanks for beeing a syntax police, are you an english student or something?

 Do you like english humor?

After reading some of your post's, it look's like you don't get the ironi sometimes, but then again maybee you are just trolling

Listen, you're a 1900. I repeat, if you think you know the sicilian you are delusional.

 Listen, you're a 1500, shut up!

From reading posts for over a year on this site, it seems like you hold the minority opinion regarding when to learn/memorize opening lines, if I'm understanding correctly the comment, "you're wrong".  I have no problems with disagreements, as we can all learn from respectful, constructive criticisms. So far, I'm not offended.

With that said, in the past year when this sort of topic comes up, the majority of chess players side with NOT memorizing opening lines at the beginning level. So, my comment regarding my ability to focus on the opening principles of play (rapid development, king saftey, castling, center control) by not needing to learn/memorize the Sicilian or the Nimzo by playing 1...d6,  is within that context.

Play whatever the hell you feel like.

 I support that one!

I only saw one post that deals with the heart of the matter.  What is/are your goal/goals?  If it's to beat GMs with black consistently, the French might not be your best choice.  But if it is to just improve your game, the best thing would be to familiarize yourself with the basic concepts of the opening, then try them in your games.  If they work for you, or if you have some natural insights into the play, by all means play it.  But you have to decide if it is working for you.  Back in the early 1970's I was trying to find an alternative to QGD.  I saw the Gruenfeld and said, "I like this!"  After something like 14 consecutive losses to my chess club buddies, I said, "I don't like this!"  I switched to the KID, found that I have some talent in it, and have been playing and winning with it since.  And while I play through Gruenfeld games and still enjoy the play, I do not play it anymore--just rare occasions in blitz.  Regardless of what everyone else here says, you are ultimately responsible for your game.  If it works for you, keep it.  If it doesn't work for you, you need to decide for yourself if it is worth the effort to make it work.  Good luck, and I hope this helps.

This may be a silly question, but what does it mean when an opening is "refuted"?

When someone discovers a move that, when played, makes the player of the opening feel rather embarrassed at his position, that opening is refuted.

It will stop beginners from being mated on f7 with a queen and a bishop, when white opens with 1. e4 . . . I M H O

I have a friend that took his high school chess team to a tournament in Reno. He had six players playing the first game. Five of them got mated on f7 with a queen and a bishop. The other one won his game.

Since there wasn't enough time to really teach them the whole French defense, before the next game he taught them to play 2.     e6 if they were defending against 1. e4.

The team finished third in the tournament.