1...e5 is better than 1...e6 and 1...c5, prove me wrong

Both 1...e5 and 1...e6 2.d4 d5 accomplish the following three things:
- occupy the center with a Pawn
- open diagonals for the Queen and the King's Bishop, help to develop these pieces
- get Black one move closer to castling

But the difference is that 1...e6 2.d4 d5 accomplishes these three things in two tempos instead of one, so it makes Black lose one tempo. Why would you do something in two tempos when you can do it in one?

Other differences between 1...e5 and 1...e6:
- 1...e5 prevents White from playing d4
- 1...e5 allows Black to develop his King's Knight to it's optimal square, the f6 square, without fear that White will kick it away by advancing his e4-Pawn to e5
- 1...e6 blocks the Queen's Bishop, turning it into a bad Bishop

1...e5 is better than 1...e6 in every single way.

1...c5
- does not occupy the center with a Pawn
- does not help develop any piece (except the Queen, but there's an opening principle that says "don't bring your Queen out too early")
- does not get Black any closer to castling

A position can only be won or a draw. So what is better?

They're all good moves. And I think all the points you make are correct with the sole exception of the statement "1...e5 is better than 1...e6 in every single way." There is a major disadvantage of 1...e5: it creates an open position (open lines) in which whoever has the extra move, White namely, will benefit more.

@Alcadeias said in #1:
> 1...c5
> - does not occupy the center with a Pawn
> - does not help develop any piece (except the Queen, but there's an opening principle that says "don't bring your Queen out too early")
> - does not get Black any closer to castling

1...c5 gives you central pawn majority in all the open lines (d-e pawns for Black against e pawn for White), which gives Black better counterplay chances in the middlegame. If White doesn't want to allow this, they need to settle for equal positions (Alapin, Closed Sicilian).

This is also reflected in Black's winrate: 1...c5 has higher winrate than 1...e5 in both the master-only and full database. As such, you could argue that c5 is actually better than e5.

How about this?
1...e5 allows white to develop with tempo with Nf3
White has multiple tricky responses after e5 ( the kings gambit, the ponziani, fried liver attack, scotch, Halloween gambit) and you have to know them all.
It also opens the king more than e6 or c5
It also weakens d5 as the only other way to defend it is with the c pawn on c6, but we usually put our knight there.
It also invites one the most well studied opening in all of chess, the ruy lopez.

"... Two-thirds of this book deals with 'Open Sicilian' positions, in which White plays 2 Nf3 followed by 3 d4. This is by far the most common way for White to meet the Sicilian. White opens more lines for his pieces and attempts to exploit the fact that he will be ahead in development. Let's take a look at the possible opening moves [1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4] ... White is up in development and can move his pieces more freely. Black, however, has a structural advantage of an extra central pawn, which gives him long-term chances of taking control of the centre. A typical imbalance has arisen. The onus is on White to exploit his lead in development in order to secure an early initiative. If White plays passively or his initiative runs out of steam, then typically it's Black, with the better pawn structure, who enjoys the long-term chances. Thus it's quite rare for a state of 'dull equality' to arise. Often in the Sicilian, if Black 'equalizes', he is already slightly better! This structural advantage is seen in most Open Sicilian lines: for example, the Dragon, the Najdorf, the Scheveningen and the Classical Variations. The major exception to this rule is the Sveshnikov Variation, in which Black accepts pawn weaknesses in return for activity. ..." - GM John Emms (2009) in Starting Out: The Sicilian, 2nd Edition

@Alcadeias you should really stop trying to hard-solve chess! It doesn't work that way! Forget those opening moves okay? They are all equally good!

Sicilian according to Stean, Simple Chess, 1978 or something like that:

Minority attacks derive from the Pawn structure, Pawn structures derive from the opening. Go back to the eras of Capablanca and Alekhine and you will see Queen's Gambits, hoards of them, with hoards of minority attacks descending from them. Nowadays [1978; still relevant] the Sicilian Defense is all the rage. Sicilians here, Sicilians there, Sicilians absolutely everywhere. Why this saturation with Sicilians? Does the Mafia's influence really extend this far? The answer lies in the minority attack. The whole idea of the Sicilian is for Black to trade his c Pawn for the d Pawn. White almost invariably obliges: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 (or d6 or e6 or g6) 3.d4 cxd4, when Black immediately arrives at a minority attack Pawn structure. Half-open c file, extra central pawn, 2-3 minority on the Queenside; these are all the necessary ingredients. Sounds infallible, so where's the snag? Why doesn't Black win every game? The problem is of course that White has a lead in development in the early stages, which may prove difficult to survive. Black's prospects lie later in the game when the winds of White's initiative have blown themselves out."
The structural weaknesses White accepts because he is trying to avoid Black's plan to launch a minority attack to get a winning endgame and must attack. They are not the cause of Black having winning endgames (otherwise White wouldn't weaken his position in such a way); merely they are a symptom of him having to attack the Black King. The root cause of this is the minority attack, and this is why most Sicilian endgames are winning for him. The minority attack is also a theme in any Rook endgames, so it's not just a late middlegame idea.

@Alcadeias said in #1:
> Both 1...e5 and 1...e6 2.d4 d5 accomplish the following three things:
> - occupy the center with a Pawn
> - open diagonals for the Queen and the King's Bishop, help to develop these pieces
> - get Black one move closer to castling
>
> But the difference is that 1...e6 2.d4 d5 accomplishes these three things in two tempos instead of one, so it makes Black lose one tempo. Why would you do something in two tempos when you can do it in one?
>
> Other differences between 1...e5 and 1...e6:
> - 1...e5 prevents White from playing d4
> - 1...e5 allows Black to develop his King's Knight to it's optimal square, the f6 square, without fear that White will kick it away by advancing his e4-Pawn to e5
> - 1...e6 blocks the Queen's Bishop, turning it into a bad Bishop
>
> 1...e5 is better than 1...e6 in every single way.
>
> 1...c5
> - does not occupy the center with a Pawn
> - does not help develop any piece (except the Queen, but there's an opening principle that says "don't bring your Queen out too early")
> - does not get Black any closer to castling

You forgot the main benefit of 1... e5
It allows 2... Ke7! and 3... Ke6!!, which is the only way to hold equality against the bongcloud

Luckily 1...c6 isn't included in the title...