Is e5 a great opening?

Hi. I've been using pawn on e4 opening on all if not most of my games as white, afterwhich I've been using mixed variations.

 I only have a question. Is there a better first move for white? Comment and post some analyses, please 

Do you mean 1.e3? 

Try 1.e4 or 1.d4

Oh I wrote e5. I was probably thinking about sicilian, haha.

 I meant e4 as white. I usually continue with either Bc4 or Kf3

yeah 1.e5 is great i dont see why I cant play it though

1.e4 *

2.Kf3 - is a great opening.

 You can't move a pawn that far. If my original comment confused you I aplogise, as I said e5 at first as white, when I meant e4.

yes i can i did it in the diagram and there is a refutation for the Hyper accelrated BC

You guys are just being trolls, lol. 

 Note: never post on the forums. See example above if you're wondering why 

no trolling is just beeing an A hole, we are just having fun ok who doesent want to break a rule here and there

THere are 4 serious tries for white on the first move, the difference between them is about taste and what kind of positions you would like to see on the board.

1.e4, 1.d4, 1.Nf3 and 1.c4 are all equally good.

I'm pretty sure 1.Na3 is just losing...:D

Regarding the original post, I actually like 1.d4 better. It's mainly preference as both are good opening moves, but 1.e4 usually leads to more "open" games (more piece mobility/early attacks) and 1.d4 to more "closed" ones.

Obviously he meant Nf3 not Kf3

no he meant Kf3

He meant Kf3 as a joke not Nf3

The durkin/sodium attack? On most databases (including chess.com's) it seems to have the highest win percentage of any first move.

f3 is poor, though.

Throughout chess history, many different first moves have been considered to be advantageous (if not best). In the second half of the 19th century, 1. e4 was considered to be the best opening, and masters played it on a regular bais. Later 1. d4 was adopted, after it - 1. c4.

Those choices were connected with the development of defense theory. In the late 19th century, "defense" sounded too passive and was associated with loss, so masters were usually going for open games. Here's the so called "Immortal Game", played in 1851 between Adolf Anderssen and Lionel Kieseritzky:

It's 1. e4 opening, King's Gambit Accepted. But what is characteristic for this game is both players' aim for quick development, early attacks, and aiming for a checkmate in the middlegame.

Nowadays, opening theory has developed much and has proved that all White's first moves can be met by a good defensive system by Black. Games like the Immortal Game don't occur often (if they occur at all).

So, all about openings is a matter of fashion, theory development, and most of all - personal choice. There is no best opening.

When choosing an opening, if you are playing for fun or to learn something new, you can play whatever is interesting to you. If you are going for a win (rated games, some tournament, etc), you have to consider your strengths and weaknesses. Some openings lead to more tactical play (1. e4 c5; 1. e4 e5), while other are more positional (1. d4 d5). So, if you are good at tactical "calculation", you should go for an open game or a gambit to exploit your ability; if you prefer positional play, then go for a closed game with slower development.