What do you think is the best opening for black after e4?

Yes, but White isn't forced to play this variation. He could have played 2.c3 or whatever he wants. You can't claim 1... c5 to be ultimate because you like one of the variations. The variation that's played depends on your opponent too. So does game outcome even when you like the variation, since the opponent may finish it better.

I play sicilian(s) most often against 1 e4 with the french defense as a backup . They are my two main defenses against 1 e4 .  In the sicilian I may play classical, sveshnikov and very rarely play also najdorf or dragon . In the french I play usually winawer , when allowed, but sometimes also play classical. I am talking about serious otb play as I may play anything when its not serious/otb. 

true, the oppenent might not even know the lines to the sicilian or might play unorthodox :P

but isnt the ruy lopez good?? the exchange variation gives a white bishop for a knight but ruins the pawn structure of black. I usually play ruy lopez as its mainly the one i study :D

Sure the Ruy is good and I like playing both sides of it. The problem with playing 1...e5 as black though is that there's many other things white can play and you need to be prepared for all of them, which means a lot of work. 

c5 isnt necessarily winning, its a challenge to whites threat to take the centre. this makes it the most annoying move for white to deal with, along with being aggresive, solid, and has the best results in the grandmaster games. and c5 is played significantly more than e5 is, in gm games.

If I were playing a grandmaster, I'd be very worried about c5 (or anything else, really).

Against a class player? I *hope* they play it. I score better against it than any other black defense. It's a power tool, to be sure, but in unskilled hands, black is more likely to hurt himself than me.

i am a huge supporter of 1...e5 you can say the scicilian is better but 1...e5 i always think is be best. and i dont even like bobby fisher

I don't 1...c5 for a few reasons; mainly because it can lead to very sharp positions where one wrong move can lead to disaster (for you or your opponent). I prefer to play positionally when I can.

Ok pal,let me explain it to you in clear English.  The normal winning % for White with 1. e4 is 38.4%, draws are 31.9%, and losses are 29.7%.  The normal percentages for 1. d4 are White wins 38.7%, draws are 34.6% and losses are 26.7%. This is from the game explorer on this website .  Not exactly  a NORMAL 54% white wins figure as you claimed earlier.  Now I suggest you quit picking on poor Glex, and cut YOUR losses.

Last time I checked, "game between equally skilled players" was read "game between equally skilled players" in English. Isn't it? If you knew how to read, you wouldn't spend so much time to figure that out. If you can't cope with reading, at least don't write stupid things and don't try to convince other people in nonsenses. Learn to read or ask someone to help you. I hope your responses will be more relevant thereafter.

Caro-Kann also challenges the center, and it is a very solid defense that gives White few opportunities in the early game, mainly because Black can close the center and use side pawn breaks if White doesn't exchange his e pawn.

Also, the sicilian's popularity in GM games is to a big extent influenced by the fact that it is very thoroughly studied, and there is much theory about it going into very deep variations. I think that will favor an experienced player with excellent opening knowledge who is proficient with different possibilities. I think playing the sicilian is a must-know for any high level player both as White and Black, for both offense and defense. It's like the cold war weapon mania.

But a must-know doesn't necessarily mean best. Throughout chess history, many openings have been crowned and dethroned as being the best, and that was mainly because of fashion and opening theory development fluctuations, and there are many openings to come and go in the future. Time has proved that every new opening can be countered, and that's because chess theory is a developing matter (and it will be until the game is conceivably solved, which is not in the foreseeable future). If other openings are studied as thoroughly as the sicilian, I believe they will be a strong weapon, because they will be less expected by the opponent. In GM matches, opponent dependant preparation is a big part of the success. That's why brilliances are so important and investigated in pregame preparation (what else could a GM work on?). I believe originality and ingenuity are what one needs to become a stronger player.

personally i like only use(for white) the Ruy Lopez, Ponziani, Scotch Game well i cant actually play them unless black does the right followers (1... e5, 2... Nc6) they sould do like 2... d6 and then thats the philidor defence. They might even do the petroff :L

It depends. If it includes, it's called scoring chance, not winning chance. Scoring chance = winning chance + 1/2 drawing chance.

For example, I have converted yusuf_prasojo's data's winning and drawing chances into scoring chances in post #85 in this topic.

i dont think so :L but it might...

The normal winning + draw %  is about 70 % , see my above post.

You don't score a full point for a draw.  You score half a point (in most scoring systems, anyway).

That's why when somebody says white "scores 54%" in some opening, what they mean is something like white WINS 34% and DRAWS 40%.  Which is to say, 34 + (.5 x 40) = 54.

And yes, math nerds, the superfluous parentheses were added merely for emphasis.

Thanks for clearing up that distinction between "winning" and "scoring". I think I knew that at one time but forgot.  However, the original argument here started with the comment - White wins 54%-  which I knew wasn't true.  No doubt, "scores" is what was intended.

The Alekhine and Caro-Kann have both worked well for me over the years. My theory is that both of these openings offer a solid defence for Black, while presenting many chances for White to get into trouble.