Is it really super hard to play e5?

I used to try to play the french defense but I start to dislike it since everyone deviates at move 3 from the mainline and I end up with an uncomfortable position. I'm thinking about playing e5 because it provides the easiest development but it seems pretty difficult because white has so many options: Guioco piano, Ruy Lopez, King's gambit, Center game, Scotch, KIA etc.

It's a long list I don't even want to think about the variations. So how does a new player survive playing e5?

I know a lot of people is going to answer to follow general opening principles but it's really easy to get confused in a new opening.

I think that it's very much overstated. The real difficulty is the Ruy Lopez -- if you don't mind playing against that, there's no reason not to play ...e5 at all. Although there are a number of tries for White, you can get comfortable games fairly easily if you learn the lines.

I'll just say a little about the possibilities. Against the Italian, you'll see that the Guioco Piano equalizes against all the early c3 and d4 lines, as well as the Evans Gambit, if you look into it at all. Otherwise, you can play the Two Knights and get an active game against 4. Ng5 if you are comfortable saccing a pawn. Against the Scotch, either 4...Nf6 or 4...Bc5 give Black a good game, though there is hope for some edge here. Against the KG, there are any number of comfortable replies, you just need to choose one -- say, the Abbazia with 2...d5 3. exd5 exf4 or 2...exf4 3. Nf3 d5. Against the Vienna, 2...Nf6 and if 3. f4 then ...d5 is well-known to give a comfortable game in a variety of lines. Against the Danish/Goring, 3...d5 (or 4...d5 in the case that White plays Nf3 before c3) equalizes easily.

Okay, let's see the line in which line white keeps an edge. I'll be overjoyed to learn of this, since I play the Italian myself.

Black can equalize against anything white opens with after 1.e4 e5, it is just that some openings are harder to equalize against than others and require more time to do so. 

Uhohspaghettio, the whole complex of 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 is known to be equal after 5...exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ by theory.  Now there might be a little advantage in 5.d3, but then again, that is fairly miniscule and as long as black has their head straight, they should be all right.  It is a tougher variation to play against akin to the Ruy Lopez.  But at best maybe +=.

Agreed with eatingcake and Conquistador: Black is basically equal against any of the Moller-type stuff. uhohspaghettio, I would be curious as to why this isn't true, as you claim.

Also agreed with paulgottlieb: the main problem with playing 1...e5 is the Ruy Lopez. Even here, though, there are many, many ways to go that are fine for Black (Berlin, Marshall, Archangel, Zaitsev, Breyer, etc.).

A few years ago I switched to 1...e5 (and I still play it sometimes). It's nice to have a nearly equal share of the center early on!

I actually said "all the early c3 and d4 lines", by which I meant 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4. I thought this was clear enough since I even distinguished it from the Evans Gambit in the same sentence, and I don't know of any other lines in the Italian that can be described like that. By the way, my offer still stands: do you have any line for white that keeps an edge after the above moves? Your post was not a criticism, but an outright contradiction of what I said, and both immature and unnecessarily hostile at that, so it's a little perplexing that you were offended by my mild sarcasm in reply...

I hover my pawn on e5 but if my opponent starts grinning it goes on e6.

 Totally agreed. As a player who started his career playing very little 1...e5 but jumped right into the Pirc, Scandinavian, and then 10 years of the French, I can say that only in the past couple of years has my chess recovered from this improper start, and even now my chess is still in some ways unnatural. Don't make the same mistake I did. Start with 1.e4 for White, 1.e4 e5 and 1.d4 d5 for Black.

Jesus Christ lads, you should know by now not to take anything uhohspaghettiums says seriously 

Posting "You are wrong" (in a huge font) after someone wrote something accurate is bound be challenged.

The Petroff is a fairly good opening, quite easy to learn, quite simple strategically, very solid, requiring rather little opening knowledge. It's also quite well documented- say Sakaev's excellent book on Chess Stars Publishing, which offers a Black repertoire against 1.e4.

 That's his MO, he logs on every morning to huff and puff and call everyone stupid imbeciles who know absolutely nothing about chess when in reality he's a distinctly average bullet junkie who lives by the gospel of Houdini and has never played a single OTB rated game in his life.

U MAD?

At first it's not so easy to play 1.e4 e5 from either side; but playing chess if you have never played 1.e4 e5 is even harder. 

The spanish is the last thing to worry about for a <1600 player. Misplaying the spanish as black is easy but not so deadly (you are worse but you can still turn the game around against equal opposition). To extract something tangible out of the spanish you need a considerable technique. Instead misplaying one of the classical c3-d4 lines of the italian usually means giving white a ready made mating attack even a weak club player can engineer(regardless of the fact that white has less than nothing with correct play). Thinking that what is frightening for a GM must be the worst nightmare of a club player is a common but wrong idea.

Thanks for all the input for everyone. I agree openings are not that important at this level since I haven't played a mainline even with e5 yet. I guess the best way is to get experience with e5 and worry later about openings.

I have been told that 1...e5 is the manly response to 1.e4. "Bring it on-mentality". Black gives white a choice of nice openings, which black is willing to fight.

Spot on, sir. You can worry about openings later- WAY later.

Here's an insight.

Today, tactical training is considered the most productive way for new chess players to spend their time. However, fifty years ago learning openings was the thing to learn first.

I know, because over 50 years ago, I read dozens of chess books. Learning openings got the lion's share of attention in these books.

I think what happened is that back then, one could not easily do tactical training from books. I remember once a week in the newspaper there would be a chess puzzle. As a lad, I would lie in bed with a chess book and a flashlight when it was my "go to bed" time. How quaint by today's standards.

Nowadays, one can sit in front of a computer screen and do scores of tactical puzzles at one sitting. I know, because I do it. Sweet.

The computer has made a huge difference in this regard.

There are many lines of the Spanish that are easier to play as Black than White (even though White technically has an edge).  Black has to know just one line of the Spanish while White has to know them all.  I think White maintain an edge in the Four Knights and the main line Scotch indefinitely (not taking into consideration th e fifty move draw rule), although it is hard to convert that edge into a win. 

There is not that much learning if you want to play a solid open game as Black (Kings Gambit declined with 2...f5, main line Italian, 3...Nf5 against Ponziani) .   If you want to play for the win, it takes a lot of study (Kings Gambit Accepted, Two Knights Defense. 3...d5 against the Ponziani).  I would start with a solid approach hen gradually start learning more ambitious lines as you need them.  For instance Black can probably get an advantage against the Ponziani with 3..d5 but the amount of effort involved is not worth it since you so rarely see the Ponziani; but then again if your nemises likes to play the Ponziani it could be worth the effort.

2...f5 against the KG is not exactly solid, and 3...Nf5 against the Ponziani slightly illegal (personally I wouldn't mind, and reply 4.ef5).