Should 1.e4 and 1...e5 be the start of all our careers?

That's why you aren't a serious player.

I didn't start with 1...e5 or by learning endgames, I started by playing speed chess on yahoo!

But looking back I can see what was useful and what was horrible lol.  It's good to keep chess fun if you're a casual player.  If you don't like learning endgames at all, then don't bother with it.  You want to stick with your risky gambits?  Fine.  But if you want to get better or if you're aiming for master let's say, then you'll have to be willing to go about it in a more professional way.

No

No??

Yeah I had problems with the sicilian dragon.  Like many beginners, I thought the openings were the reason I was losing games, so I kept switching openings until I found one that fit me best.  One of the reasons why I never tried e5, however, is that I felt that all e4 players were prepared for e5 while in sicilian they might not feel so comfortable.  Also everything is going to have a lot of theory, whether you study it or not is up to you.  Now you ask whether studying open games is necessary or not.  To me it wasn't because I never tried; however, someone who started with the open games will have a bias for favoring the study of open games early on.  Basically what I am trying to get across here is to do whatever you think is FUN because that is one of the main points of chess.  If you aren't having fun then there is no point. 

Edit: I also started with 1. d4 instead of 1. e4:p

I've only ever really played 1. d4

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

I played 1. e4 and 1. ... e5 as a beginner, because that was the conventional wisdom.

Then I read my first chess book, and started learning 1. d4 lines. I learned more about chess that way. There are many lessons to be learned about development and piece coordination, as well as tactics, that can be learned that way.

If I had more time for chess, perhaps I would either have gone a different way, or perhaps I would have developed further in the way I chose to go. But for the limited time I have had to devote to chess, I feel I have done okay with d4 lines (and on occasion, c4 lines). It may not be the road to becoming a Grandmaster, but it can get you to the right side of the bell curve with modest effort.

Black unnecessarily weakened the kingside, so white wins. 

That was another fear. EVERYONE who plays 1.e4 is ready for the response 1...e5 followed by 2Nf3...Nc6. People are so familiar with this position. Even at a weak level like me who is a 1485 people are so used to 1.e4...e5

2.nf3...nc6 

how is someone with no experience with 1...e5 supposed to hold his own against someone whos been playing 1.e4 all his life? 

Personally i do love playing 1...e5 though even through the counter arguments ive made. I LOVE the positions that come about lol. 

I can't say I've ever lost a 1.e4 e5 game because of the opening as either color. If I lost early it's because of a tactical miscalculation, and if I lost later it's because of something that happened in the middlegame/endgame, usually because of a tactical miscalculation. I love playing 1...e5 as well although I don't have the slightest clue what I'm doing. Which explains my 100% score with it since I started playing it again last year.

Yes, 9.Bxc6 is much stronger than 9.Nb3 there. Black can only fully equalize there in my opinion by playing 9...bxc6 10.f3 Ng5 11.f4 Ne4 12.Be3 Bb6!. However I prefer the much simpler 5...Ne4 =.

It might be helpful; it might not matter -- I am not going to claim that I can even come close to knowing if your opening choice makes any difference at all, so long as you are breaking apart the causes of your losses during game analysis. I think you can learn about practically any phase of the game in practically any opening -- if you could truly avoid one phase of the game with opening choice, then you could get away without studying entire aspects of a chess game such as tactics.

Ultimately, I don't think you should feel like something horrible is going to happen if you don't play e4 e5 -- I would be much more concerned with my approach to learning in general. Personally, I didn't follow the advice above, and I turned out fine (but of course, maybe I would have been master or something by now had I done so... maybe, but I highly doubt it). I learned about development because of the times where not developing punished me. That's how I learned about king safety too. And so on. It hardly required a specific opening choice.

Ultimately I think there are so many variables involved that it is dangerous to assume opening choice has a severe impact on your improvement compared to other variables.

I have been using Hungarian and g6 setups that make the opening a lot easier to play.

When White tries Bxc6 when I capture with bxc6 I get the same structure as a Scotch Mieses variation. You get the same thing from other lines.

I just can't find anything simple for that pesky king's gambit.

Don't take me wrong but i get the idea that you are unsure or maybe uncomfortable about playing 1...e5 because i've seen you create other threads about this subject before. If that's the case you don't need to play 1...e5, just play something that you feel comfortable with, the caro-kann, the sicilian, something that you like. Of course that there are a lot of different ways to play 1...e5 and this makes it an interesting field to explore. In some games you can choose between playing sharp or calm lines. For instance in a must win situation maybe the Two Knights defense is the right choice but if you want a slightly more solid game, 3...Bc5 would probably be a better choice against the Italian,the same goes for the Ruy Lopez, etc...Now say that you play the Sicilian Dragon or Najdorf, white will be the one dictating the nature of the game.

Of course you can't always control this and there will be situations where after 1...e5 white will be the one dictating the nature of the game although it seems to me that this happens less often than in the Sicilian.

I think every player is different.

I used to play e5 when I was a complete beginner. My play was extremely passive and reactive and I had no idea how to generate counterplay. I decided to find openings that would force unsymetrical play and sharp battles; I therefore learnt the sicilian and later specialized into the dragon.

Of course I started losing every single games. I bought a couple of books, learnt about it, and gradually understood what I needed to learn. I dare to say that without being an excellent player, I eventually got a lot of success with my dragons and that I learnt more out of it that I would have ever imagined, and what I learnt served me both as black and white. I now play all kind of sicilians, but I have a feeling that because black setup is almost the same in all variations, and because you NEED to play actively, the dragon was absolutely perfect for me as a beginner.

(As strange as it might sound, i think if you are ready to take it seriously and study a little bit, the dragon is a fantastic pedagogic tool at low level. The concepts are very simple to understand -jump on your opponent throat before he gets to you-, the setup is nearly the same in all variations and if you do it wrong and play passively you get obliterated. If you need to develop someone's sense of initiative, there you go)

My personnal experience brings a counter exemple though. I decided that since I was going into sharp openings, I would play the king's indian against d4 (also because I am a die-hard fan of Polgar). I learnt a lot about it, built a small repertoire against every main variation. It never worked out for me, and I kept losing anytime my opponent knew what he was doing. I eventualy transitionned into the slav defenses. The thing is that King's Indian requires very good positional play for black in most variations, and to play it well you need to be able to exploit very subtle details. NOT a good opening at low level, for sure.

I used to play d4, and now play e4. I think playing both is good when you start. My e4-e5 knowledge therefore comes exclusively from the white point of view, except for some lines of the Berlin that I wanted to experience.

In a nutshell, you play what is good for your development. Thinking that anybody NEEDS to play e4-e5 at first is just dogmatic. You have a zillion stuff to learn as a beginner with the sicilian. The battle or the centre, the control of important squares etc... seems to me much easier to understand with non symetrical play. And I do believe that had I stick to e5, I would have remained the same passive, unimaginative and reactive player that I was. Now, my opponents consider me a tactical and fairly aggressive player; this is what I like about the game and how I always wanted to play.

I think a lot depends on the people you hang around when you first begin.

I think Black should always start 1.e4 e5 and 1.d4 d5, as advertised previously.

White?  I think opening concepts are critical, and all players should play both 1.e4 and 1.d4.  Which you play more often will usually depend on the influences around you.  Not talking GMs, but rather, the other players rated 1400 and below in your club.

But, like always, don't get hung up on opening study and opening names at that level.  Play a mix of 1.e4 and 1.d4 as White (literally 50/50, if possible), and base everything on opening concepts, like controlling the center and moving pieces only once unless forced to move again.

You will eventually establish more of a comfort zone, and after maybe 50 games with each, you'll tend to lean more towards one over the other.  It's like a baby becoming left-handed vs right-handed.  A parent shouldn't force their kids to be right-handed.  The same goes for 1.e4 vs 1.d4 for a chess player.  Try both, see which one you are more comfortable with, then start playing that one move pretty much exclusively, and once you hit about 1800, start studying the actual variations of the possible defenses you could face depending upon which move you end up going with.

Nobody should be forced to play anything. If you are forced you will enjoy the game less and that can never be the idea.

From a pure teaching value point of view it is the easiest to start with e5 for 2 reasons.

1. Central strategy is relatively clear (compared to semi-open or closed openings).
2. It is easier to develop your pieces to logical squares because .. well the logical squares are easier to find because of well.. the central strategy is easier :)

But by all means don't let anybody stop you from playing any normal opening the develops light pieces and castle.

I don't know what to say. It seems like fairly odd advice. Is an e4-e5 opening the only way to learn real chess and real strategy?

The only thing I have against other openings, like the semi open games, is that they can be fairly difficult to play. 

I think there really isn't one opening that teaches you everything. Change openings gradually to learn more ideas. Nothing wrong with e4-e5, but no conditio sine qua non for me.

I do feel like everyone needs an education in e4-e5. But then maybe we need an education in EVERY opening if we truley want to get good. Idk maybe e4-e5 is important to get an education in the open game. It is easier, it is a solid opening, and idk. This cant be tested but i greatly appreciate everyones opinions. theres no real clear overall concensus but ill go with 1...e5 for now. Please dont hesistate to put more input on this subject its very interesting. Any stories from super gm's oir gms who exclusevly played 1 opening their whole lives