what is a good opening for a amateur chess player

A better question would ask for an opening for a specific color (and particularly with black you'd ask for an opening against e4 or d4 or c4). 

Or you could describe things about yourself as a player and what your strengths and weaknesses are, and perhaps we could give you some general repertoire suggestions. 

London System as white

Perhaps it would be a good idea to start with Discovering Chess Openings, a book about opening principles.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf

For White, you might try the suggestions in My First Chess Opening Repertoire for White.
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9033.pdf
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/vincent-moret/

or Opening Repertoire 1 e4.
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7819.pdf

"... As Black, I think that [players with very limited experience] would do well … playing 1...e5 versus 1 e4 and 1...d5 versus 1 d4. … [After 1 d4 d5, if] White plays the most important move, 2 c4, inexperienced players might want to begin classically with 2...e6 followed by ...Nf6 and ...Be7 …" - IM John Watson (2010)

If that advice sounds good to you, you could look at First Steps: 1 e4 e5 and First Steps: the Queen's Gambit.
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7790.pdf

https://chesscafe.com/book-reviews/first-steps-1-e4-e5-by-john-emms/
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7652.pdf
Be sure to try to use the openings in games in between sessions of learning. Most of the time, one faces a position with no knowledge of a specific move indicated in a book. One has to accept that as part of chess, and think of opening knowledge as a sometimes helpful aid. After a game, it makes sense to try to look up the moves in a book and see if it has some indication of how one might have played better in the opening. Many opening books are part explanation and part reference material. The reference material is included in the text with the idea that one mostly skips it on a first reading, and looks at an individual item when it applies to a game that one has just played. Resist the temptation to try to turn a book into a mass memorization project. There are many important subjects that one should not neglect because of too much time on opening study.
https://www.chess.com/article/view/learning-an-opening-to-memorize-or-understand
"... Overall, I would advise most players to stick to a fairly limited range of openings, and not to worry about learning too much by heart. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... If the book contains illustrative games, it is worth playing these over first ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... the average player only needs to know a limited amount about the openings he plays. Providing he understands the main aims of the opening, a few typical plans and a handful of basic variations, that is enough. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
"... Everyman Chess has started a new series aimed at those who want to understand the basics of an opening, i.e., the not-yet-so-strong players. ... I imagine [there] will be a long series based on the premise of bringing the basic ideas of an opening to the reader through plenty of introductory text, game annotations, hints, plans and much more. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627055734/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen38.pdf
"The way I suggest you study this book is to play through the main games once, relatively quickly, and then start playing the variation in actual games. Playing an opening in real games is of vital importance - without this kind of live practice it is impossible to get a 'feel' for the kind of game it leads to. There is time enough later for involvement with the details, after playing your games it is good to look up the line." - GM Nigel Davies (2005)
"... Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake. ... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf

Around 2010, IM John Watson wrote, "... For players with very limited experience, ... the Sicilian Defence ... normally leaves you with little room to manoeuvre and is best left until your positional skills develop. ... I'm still not excited about my students playing the Sicilian Defence at [the stage where they have a moderate level of experience and some opening competence], because it almost always means playing with less space and development, and in some cases with exotic and not particularly instructive pawn-structures. ... if you're taking the Sicilian up at [say, 1700 Elo and above], you should put in a lot of serious study time, as well as commit to playing it for a few years. ..."

I do not feel up to attempting to reproduce IM Watson’s reasoning.

Personal preference.

Play 1.e4

You want to learn open games first.

You're going to get a million different answers to this question.  Play around with them and find a couple for white and black that you like to play.

I do not have extensive knowledge of the various possibilities. I am just trying to pass on my impression of what seems to be conventional wisdom. I guess I could add that I don't remember anyone indicating that it would be a catastrophe if one went against conventional wisdom. If Gollum2005 has a strong interest in something other than 1 e4 e5, then I would think that that, by itself, would provide a reason in favor of giving it a try.

Unless we're paid to play, or sponsored, we are all amateurs. For an absolute beginner, getting the board and pieces set up properly is always a good first move . . .

As for how to move those pieces, there is no right or wrong way to open. There may be better or poorer ways, and the best way to find out what's best for you, is to read up on openings for beginners. Good luck.

Follow-up. Read some books by GM Yasser Seirawan. Here are two videos regarding opening and opening theoy. I open/defend along Reti (Nf3), PIRC.

I have mixed feelings about this suggestion. As far as I know, Yasser Seirawan's only book about openings is Winning Chess Openings.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627132508/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen173.pdf

https://www.chess.com/article/view/book-review-winning-chess-openings

My guess is that, of the books of this sort, it is the most readable, but, even in this case, I fear that reading about one opening after another will turn into a dreary task. I wonder if an under-1000 player is better off starting with Discovering Chess Openings, and going on to some book that suggests choices for the reader and explains them with lots of illustrative games.

You are correct; as far as I know Yasser's only openings book is Winning Chess Openings. However, it covers most openings a beginner is going to encounter and then in the final chapters gives very specific suggestions, ideas for opening and defending. It's the main book I read when taking up chess again and it helped me immensely.

It's important for a beginner to concentrate on their openings and I think trying to read 2, 3, 4 or more books on openings only results in information overload. So, while I am unfamiliar with Discovering Chess Openings, if it is a book similar to Yasser's, then read it. It is important to get some exposure to openings, understand the theory/principals behind why the moves are made, then selecting one or two you are most comfortable with. And that's why I recommend Yasser's book, as that is exactly his idea for beginners.

Yasser's, Play Winning Chess is also aimed at beginners and is a good book for its intended audience. It touches on openings, but of course gets into basic strategies and tactics, as well, so openings aren't explained in depth like his openings book.

1.e4 e5 as both colors (aiming for spanish)

and or

1.d4 d5 as both colors (aiming for queen's gambit declined)

---

I've seen Seirawan suggest the Pirc before, and he said he played it in his youth.

Pros: With limited study, even as a beginner you can avoid an opening disaster.

Cons: White has a wide variety of options, forcing extra study as you progress beyond beginner.

Plus hypermodern openings are not as logical. It's better to follow the natural progression of chess itself with classical openings first.

---

These are not my suggestions, they are the suggestions of many players and coaches better than me.

Thank you

I wish I had thought of it. I read it from an interview with Kramnik.

He said he can't quite explain it, but he thinks a player should follow the natural progression of the history of chess starting with Steinitz

(I think it's logical too, so when he says he can't quite explain it I wonder what he means exactly)

I am glad that Winning Chess Openings worked for you, but

"... everyone is different, so what works for one person may likely fail with another ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627084053/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman19.pdf

You were “taking up chess again” and perhaps already had a fair amount of experience? In any event, for many of us, without illustrative games, it is hard to get much out of an exposition on the “theory/principals” of one opening after another. I wonder if such a presentation helps very many to identify ”one or two” openings with which one will be “most comfortable”. Discovering Chess Openings does not attempt to cover “most openings a beginner is going to encounter”, and, consequently, I think that it is able to do a better job explaining things that an under-1000 player needs to know about the center, development, etc. Attempting to read 2, 3, or 4 books can certainly be “information overload” if the books are mostly just collections of stuff to memorize. On the other hand, if the reading is mostly illustrative games, it can be an instructive experience that does not have to be undertaken all at once in order to be helpful.

Yeah, Paul Keres's opponents had such an easy time when he replied 1...e5

I know this is off topic, but what's interesting to me is why they decided to have so many shots with a dark foreground and bright background. The main character (whether it's a person or jet) is often silhouetted. It really stands out because you don't often see that.

I guess it fits with the music and everything, and of course it's a well known and popular film... but

Just imagine how you'd make an action movie about young men and fighter jets... the first thing that comes to mind isn't this ambient music and silhouetted characters. They're building up this elegant atmosphere, and maybe that's a nice contrast to the action that comes later. I don't know, but it's obviously on purpose and AFAIK it's not common.

If I remember correctly, there was a decision to add more scenes to the movie after most of the filming was done. The story goes that they did the extra filming in such a way as to avoid the necessity to closely match with character appearances in other parts of the film.