so why did YOU leave 1.e4 e5?

I left 1. ... e5 because as I studied some openings, I found that it gives a lot of choice to the white player what he likes to play ... be it Ruy, Italian, Scotch, KG, and I as black should know them all if I want to play 1. ... e5 well. Since I had begun to like the French, I started to play this. However recently I returned to ... e5 (not in OTB, here in online blitz at first) because it seems to give more exciting battles than the French Exchange over and over again, and most players at my level don't seem to have too much opening knowledge at all and deviate from book early even if I know the line ... so maybe there will be a return to ... e5 in my next OTB tournament ...

I left 1...e5 because I was stupid.

I returned to it after losing many games on the Black hand of the regular and accelerated Dragon, and became a a happy man again.

White can choose to play 5. e5 instead of 5. 0-0. 

I just switched from e5 to dragon as black, because i dont want to memorize theory for kings gambit, scotch, ruy lopez, vienna game, two knights, etc. I want it simple, and to still give me winning chances.

Ah, congrats. There's only one little issue: Now you have to memorize even more theory...

Not really, its better for me, i just have 2 know some anti-sicilians, and some theory. Luckily, wikipedia only gives up to Re8, so thats all i need to know, right? (re8 from yugoslav attack)

i think the theory in the dragon just sounds less because less of the variations are named while in 1.e4 e5 everything is named. for example 6.g3 in the dragon is not named but there is written whole books about it

I started Nf3 because I didn't like the simetry.

I never played 1...e5 ever.  Probably only a handful to time in blitz chess just to screw around.  As a beginner I didn't like feeling cramped in mainline philidor, and the ruy seemed too complicated with lots of variations.

I went with 1...c5 for a bit, but switched to the scandinavian because it didn't feel so cramped and there weren't a lot of lines to know.

As black, I don't like how white's first turn seems a tangible advantage, especially in symmetrical games. I'd rather play the Sicilian where I feel that I am planning and unleashing an attack rather than only responding to my opponent's moves.

As white, I still dislike going into the e4 e5 lines, although I do enjoy the fried liver when possible. I also know the d4 lines more thoroughly, so I like to take advantage of that and spend less thinking during the opening than during the middle game.

I JUST PLAY GAMBITS!

WHO'S WITH ME?!!

If 1. e4, I play 1. ... f5!

Because white wants you to play e5, this lets them play their favourite opening. You're playing into their hand imo. Can't imagine someone wanting to play against the sicillian or French, when their fav opening is scotch or ruy lopez

I still play e5 about half the time and trust me...no one puts time into their e5 reply until much higher up the rating ladder. Most just still play it by feel. Which means you could barely put a few weeks into learning some e5 ideas and have a serious leg up on competition

to experiment with other structures and ideas.

I'll echo an earlier sentiment - "to avoid symmetry." 

Not only is symmetry boring to me, but in any symmetrical position, the player with the move is bound to have an advantage. 

I play whatever i feel like for black EXCEPT FOR DEFINETLY NOT Sicilian (IDASP means = "i dont allow sicilian players")

I originally left it because it was what 'everyone' at lower level played and I thought using something like the sicilian would give me a one up over other players.

I soon found out everyone had this idea, and white knew their theory pretty well. I had good success with the sicilian, but came back to ..e5 as I much prefer the black side of 'anti ruys' (kings gambit etc) to the anti sicilians (closed, grand prix etc).

play d4 best for e4-e5 haters (im one)