1..e5?

I reached 2075 uscf whilst automatically replying to 1.e4 with 1..c5. A couple months back I decided to switch to 1..e5 just to mix things up and it's been a struggle ever since.  People say the sicilian is complicated but I'm starting to think 1..e5 should be a 2200+ opening. Having to know the correct answers to the Scotch game, King's gambit, center game, Italian game, the Spanish, the two knights defense, the evan's gambit, the four knights game, the vienna, the freaking elephant gambit and the list goes on.  Not to mention that one has to play like Houdini to win the black side of the four knights.  Back to 1..c5 now. Am interested in reading any comments on the matter.

I started off with 1..c5 as well and played the black side of 1..e5 for a while. TBH i dont find its so difficult that its a master level opening as the replies  to many of those openings arn't too difficult (especially italian lines). However its very boring to play against the italian again and again.

I think it's really a matter of experience with the resulting positions. As a 1900 fide rated 1...e5 player who recently gave 1...c5 a go, i experienced the exact opposite.

1...c5 forces you to deal with countless different antisicilians and maybe 10 different subvariations within your favourite open line, most of which are very sharp and require concrete knowledge. I also found very difficult to generate winning chances in most lines (expecially the antis, but also in the quieter Be2 open lines), and decided that i will never dare to go near 1...c5 again unless I become a master.

On the opposite side, i find rather easy to deal with white alternatives to the spanish (which of course doesn't mean that i win every game, just that i'm satisfyed with the positions i get out of the opening), and think it's rather easy to play for a win as black in the four knight. The great thing about the simmetrical 1.e4 e5 is that it often just takes one passive move from white and suddently black is the one "playing white".

You probably feel the same regarding the anti-sicilian: what seems to me a two-results position in the Alapin will certainly be full of counterattacking ideas for black to your well trained eye, since you have experiance in playing such positions; similarly, the "i can't win this" positions you got in the four knights will probably seem full of counterchances for black to an experience 1...e5 player.

bresando, check out my thread where I complain about the sicilian and I'm thinking of swithing to 1...e5 :)

Out of curiousity, what do you play as white?

I've always played the sicilian and I think it's harder to play, i.e. you need to know more theory. It's popular at GM levels because everybody knows theory, just like the Grunfeld. Black needs to be prepared for a ton of variations (and needs= no theory you lose). This is not a problem for GMs because they know everything, but it's a problem for an amateur with a limited time for chess.

And the fact is, I know 15 moves of theory in some lines of the Najdorf. But that's not my problem. My problem is that even against natural intuitive moves from white you're still in danger, always on the edge.

For example, open sicilian with Qxd4. If you think you're better because white "brought his queen out too early" and you can win a free tempo, you're in for a surprise. You equalize if you do the best moves of course, but a bad move gets you mated.

I understand the problem. I played 1.e4 and 1...e5 for years when I was little and much after that, and it's safe to say the theory behind it is massive. Mathematically it makes no sense to say 1...e5 gives more theory than 1...c5, but in reality the only way to contest the black pawn in the Sicilian is with d4, which means black always has his trusted mini centre and you have all the time in the world to focus on all the variations. Truthfully, in the case of the Najdorf this can be quite an ordeal, but you see what I mean. 

Another problem is that the Sicilian is dynamic, while the 1...e5 game can be static. Black is keeping his e5 pawn in stronghold fashion and is willing to give white half the board, but not an inch more. I've played my fair share of those positions and one can often think there's not a whole lot to do there for black unless you can organize the counter thrust d5, which should equalize to say the least.

Basically, you need to change your mindset. For starters, black starts with equality, but the progress will be much slower in many cases. On the contrary, in the Sicilian black has a space disadvantage but is ready to lash out at any time to change the game around.

Secondly, two months may not be enough time to get comfortable with a completely new opening.  

Me? 1.e4, pretty mainline but not overly sharp stuff (delayed d3 lines against the spanish, mostly Be2 lines against the sicilian). I always tought theory is something only black really needs (i mean, you can play quiet but logical moves as white and still have the more pleasant position, so why bother studying stuff like the Bg5 on Bc4 najdorf? as black instead i play sharper lines and know more theory).

The same can be said about 1.e4 e5: in theory, 2.Nf3 is the only way to put lasting pressure on black; in practice however, other moves are also very dangrous, just as 2.c3 or Nc3 are very dangerous against the sicilian regardless of the fact that in theory says just 2.Nf3/3.d4 gives white some pressure.

That's what I thought as well, but as I started playing in the 1800+ FIDE range with 1.e4 I came across heavy preparation.

I recently started playing 1.d4 2.c4 and so far it's looking good. The difference is that there are many more things that white can play (and still maintain an edge), and playing more calmly and a bit slower rewards positional understanding more than memorization.

I still don't have enough experience to say that I prefer d4, but so far my experience is that if you're looking for quiet and logical moves 1.d4 2.c4 might be better.

That's cute, but you are however quite wrong. As black you need to put up with the KG and the Scottish, as well as other lines with a delayed c3 and d4 which would give white the actual majority. Then you need an answer against the deviations that are more ''piecy'' then ''pawny.'' A famous example is the Prussian game, which is a real headache to study, unless you're prepared to enter the real Italian game. If you're a player with a Sicilian heart then I don't need to explain why you don't want to play those positions, and otherwise I won't bother.  I guess my point is the 1...e5 player is always asking white where the action is going to be. The Sicilian player plays his own game.

I respectfully disagree, but you're right, everything boils down to what your heart says: as a 1...e5 player, my heart say that ther king gambit or vienna are less pressing for black that the alapin or closed sicilian are (and my heart is quite wrong). As a sicilian player, your heart say that the antis are nothing to worry about while white's alternative to the scotch or spanish are very dangerous (and your heart is quite wrong too). In truth these lines are equally dangerous but in practice according to our style we may find one or another more pleasant to play.

Just one thing puzzles me, your statement that "The Sicilian player plays his own game". The sicilian is basically an invitation to white which says "dear white, you have the initiative, do whatever you want to me, but you must know that in the long term i have an extra central pawn and a sort of minority attack on the queenside, so use that initiative quickly otherwise you will be worse". I would describe the typical sicilian player as a creative defender who doesn't mind if white is conducting the dance, since he knows that there is a big reward at the end of the rainbow if he reacts well to white's initiative. The player who likes to dictate the pace of the game as black is more likely to play 1..e5. This doesn't mean that 1...e5 is better of course, that would be a foolish statement. But there is no denying that a black player who wants white to decide where the action  is unlikely to play the inflexible 1...e5.

I find the alternatives to the Ruy less dangerous than the anti-sicilian.
However I still play sicilian simply because I seem to get an open sicilian probably 1/5 of the time, while I get a mainline ruy 1/25 of the time.

Petroff

I don't know if there's any point, but I felt I had to point out you're battling a strawman here, and not something I actually said. 

Yes, it is true black concedes space in the Sicilian, but in return he gets to manouevre freely on the queenside with the support of the hedging mini centre. This means after the opening d4 and cxd, white does not get to dictate free exchanges because there is simply nothing left to hold on to, unless white works hard to cross the fifth rank and beyond. In many e4-e5 lines this is simply not the case: Black stands firm in the centre and while the game is fairly even, the e5 pawn remains a clear target. There are of course lines where black plays exd at some point, but it is pretty much agreed on white is doing fine here, unless black can neutralize the game with d5. So again, after all this black has to allow exchanges in the centre, which may not be the position you are always looking for. 

So, I don't know if there is any point, but I can say in return your characterizations are very puzzling to me.

Thanks for all the feedback and comments. I suppose that my middlegame "attitude" when playing the Sicilian is not as appropriate when playing 1..e5. Conversely, a 1..e5 player who approaches the Sicilian with a "hold the line" mentality would be just as uncomfortable.  I am going to make myself learn how to play it well just to learn more about chess as a whole. I'm also one of those Hyper-Accelerated Dragon lunatics which gives a practical edge in the form of theory being narrow ( most people go for a Maroczy bind which isn't too scary when you learn to play it with black or the old fashioned accelerated Dragon lines for white which aren't terribly frightening either).