1...e5 or 1...c5 against 1.e4?

I am still not sure what to play against 1.e4. I tried the Scandi, the open games, and 1...c6. I thought that the 1...c5 would be to wild for my taste, but probably I am just wrong. I am interesting in your opinion, especially if you changed fro 1...e5 to 1...c5. Do you like the positions you get with the Scicilian? What do you think about the Najadorf, in the case you play or played it once?

I mean of course Najdorf...

"Generally speaking, 'Starting Out' and 'Sicilian Najdorf' are not exactly words that one envisions in the same title, because anyone who is just starting out should not dive into the vast ocean of theory that is the Najdorf. For beginners, the time invested in studying even minor lines can be more productively used solving tactical puzzles and basic endgame technique.
...
... In some lines, a good understanding of basic principles will take you far, while in others, such as the Poisoned Pawn (6 Bg5 e6 7 f4 Qb6!?), memorization is a must, as one wrong move can cost you the game in the blink of an eye. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2006)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626175558/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen87.pdf
"... one simply cannot play the [Najdorf Sicilian] safely without studying the complications and remembering a lot of concrete variations. If you are averse to doing this, or you have a poor memory, you are better off avoiding such lines." - FM Steve Giddins (2003)
"As a professional player, I participate in many opens. I need at least 7.5/9 for the first place so I have little margin for mistakes. ... It suffices to mention the 6.Bg5-attack with forced variations all the way up to move thirty or more, to understand my reluctance to use the Najdorf. ..." - GM Alexander Delchev (2006)
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. ..."

Dear kindaspongey, thank you very much for the quotations, they are very clear against playing the Sicilian, especially the Najdorf Scicilian! Well, it seems that I should still go on with my open games...

With your level, I'd stick to e5.

I am not working only on openings, I am learning endgames (100 Endgames You Must Know: Vital Lessons for Every Chess Player, by Jesus De La Villa), strategy (Simple Chess, by Michael Stean), and tactics (Chessimo, CT-ART 5.0). But I heard somewhere that playing horrible openings moves is not the best way to use your knowledge on tactics and strategy, and often you will even not have a possibility to play endgames at all. I am sure that what you are saying is a good advice for somebody who doesn't work with other phases on the game (as I  said, not may case).

I know that there is a myth around that you can get a very strong player, even a GM (!), just playing by principles. I am really not sure about this. When I talk with players 1800+ I am impressed with their knowledge in their openings. With 1500 or weaker players, you will find horrible gaps already after 3 or 4 moves. I played a guy some days ago who is playing chess all his life, and in the Ruy Lopez, Exchange Variation he just took my poisoned e5-pawn with the knight. He even did not think that it was something wrong with his position after I regained the pawn with advantage. He is not stronger in tactics than me, but I have really to make a huge blunder to give him a chance to draw against me  - this mainly because I get very good positions after the opening, saving my energy in the first 3 to 10 moves.

There is something else about learning openings: you also learn a lot about strategy, tactics, and endgames. 

Let's see following game in the Dutch, where Black plays the Leningrad without a c4 setup

Black should play 12...0-0 instead of 12...c4, but he had already a bad position.

The move 16. Nxe7 was at first a surprise for me, since as a weak player I would not exchange anything when attacking (here of course is the exchange the right thing to do, and most moves by Black are forced until the end). Learning openings help me to understand how to play chess. I cannot see why this should be bad.

even though i don't play the french i'd pick that opening because a) you don't have to memorise 5000 moves and b) you can punish people who don't know what they're doing.

I remember once I gave a try with the French, not having any idea how to play the lines. Some weak players were able to sacrifice things like the quality with advantage, and I dropped it. But I know that the opening is good if you know what you are doing  (like once Wolfgang Uhlmann, who played almost only this defence).

This is one of his games.

The eternal question of what to play against 1. e4. For myself the Caro-Kann is the fall back as I have general issues with both 1.. e5 and 1..c5.

1.. e5 I almost never play. It is incredibly booked up at all levels and there are simply too many variations. Suppose we always go down the main line, Ruy Lopez Breyer variation, that I am happy with. However just some slight deviation may take me out of book. And if it is not a Ruy Lopez at all such as 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4, the Scotch game is completely different and usually enough to take me out of my comfort zone, as I really don't have a good line against that.

1.. c5 the problem is that it is a very aggressive, no margin for error type of opening. If black plays it correctly black will end up equal or better, but if something goes slightly wrong the position collapses and it is suddenly GG. There are a lot of lines and variations to look at. If I play 1.. c5 I usually play the hyper-accelerated dragon (I read a book on this opening), which has relatively fewer variations and the worse black can face is probably the Maroczy bind, which I don't think is that terrible.

I used to play 1...c6 for years. Constantly found myself defending for the first 30 moves of the game.

Not every game. But alot.

Then I switched to 1...c5, and am much happier with it.

I never really messed with 1...e5. So I couldn't offer much about that.

Only with one rarely seen variation (that a local club player loves to play against me, with little success)

1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5 3.e5!?

This is when I go back to my Caro-Kann days, and confuse the heck out of them, with 3....h5!?!?

But otherwise, no.

I used to be an e4 player when I was younger, but about 6-7 years ago (I was a 1300 in 7th grade) I got enough money to buy my first chess book, Play the Sicilian Dragon by Edward Dearing.

I read it completely during the summer and the beggining of my 8th grade year but the main problem for me was that I knew all the lines, but most lines involve the Rook sac on c3 and outplaying your in the endgame with a Knight and perfect pawn structure vs rook and bad pawn structure. (assuming the game isn't over by move 19 because of a small inaccuracy by either player) and I didn't know much about endgames so I would lose many games. 

It wasn't until I put emphasis on my endgames (specially the endgames that arise from my openings that my rating skyrocketed 600 points in about 15 tournaments. 

My point is that my opening knowledge was basically useless until I knew how to finish games. My two cents would be to look at the endings that usually arise from the opening you want to play, study it, and then study the opening. 

Ohh, and although the Najdorf is highly theoretical, so is the Spanish, Italian, and even the Scotch, so don't worry about people thinking you're too low rated to play an opening, that's bs, if you feel comfortable play it. 

I've played the Najdorf as well, and I like it, but one thing you must know is that sometimes your king will be safer in the center, so you're gonna have get comfortable with those positions.

All established openings are good and it depends on what fits your style of play, so you can't simply ask others for their opinion on what's best: it's like asking what's the best shoe size.

I suggest looking at a book that surveys the openings in terms of the ideas behind them - even the old Reuben Fine book, Ideas Behind the Openings is still good.

You say, for example you've played 1...c6.  Do you understand that the point is to get the QB outside your P-chain before ...e6 makes it a "Bad Bishop," that if White plays the Advance you can undermine his P-chain with ...c5 or ...b6 or ...f6 and that playing ...Nbd7 not only supports those moves but prevents White from setting up a N-Outpost at c5 or e5?

You should understand those principles about all the variations you're considering in terms of Najdorf (...a6 prevents Bb5+ -why is that good? It also helps prepare for a Black Q-side expansion), Dragon (what can the fiancettoed B do for you?), etc. Sicilians - know WHY the opening is the way it is and if it fits your style.

1...c5.  I never play symmetrical responses as Black on my first move.  If I want to beat someone, I can't just copy their moves.

But if I may offer from my experience with 1...c5, I won't say I have never lost a game. Nor will I say I have lost less, than I did playing 1....c6.

But I will say I have always gotten at least some counterplay, for my troubles, playing the Sicilian.

I have always had a fightng chance.

Then I compare that to my playing the Caro-Kann. When things went bad in that opening, all I could do is cower in the corner, watching as my opponent amassed his final assault.

Going down fighting is better.