c4 the best initial move????

It doesn't matter what Stockfish plays as the first move. It will crush you :)

I like the Bird's Opening 1.f4! It has simple and sound strategy of controlling Black's weakest central square e5 by means of f4, Nf3 and b3-Bb2. Also, the LSB can go to b5 and trade itself for the Knight to further weaken Black's control of the e5 square. There are also quite a number of possibilites for White to play. You can attack on the KS, perhaps play int he centre with e4 etc...

However, personally if I had to choose one move to be the best move, I would go with 1.d4. I think 1.d4 is objectively the best first move for White and has the best chance of retaining slight opening advantage for White. One Correspondence GM actually wrote a book about 1.d4 and how to refute all of the Black's defenses with very accurate move orders. However, I don't exactly recall the lines or the title of the book at the moment.

I don't know if its ever going to be possible for White to prove a winning advantage, but it has definitely been tried by many good players. So, if Magnus cannot prove a winning advantage along with other top minds in chess, then it's safe to say that it doesn't matter which first move you go with. Whatever move feels best to you, you should play it. If it's 1.c4, then play 1.c4.

I like 1.Nf3 for example as the first move also due to its amazing flexible nature. It's probably the most flexible decent move for White that controls the center.

@FirstChessPlayer2012 said in #15:

Actually the defeat is a win for the opponent

Nice paradox ! But a win is a defeat for your opponent!

@Amitinga said in #1:

Today I came across Stockfish saying that the best starting move is c4, it's correct?

I found this strange because it normally shows e4 as the best opening move.

Have there been any changes?

1. d4 ... is the best move in chess!!!

But, I don't like d4 so I play e4. Then if I face d4 I have to try d5 or something off the wall.

"... With White only the [1 e4] opening should be played. Although there is no difference in value between [1 e4] and [1 d4] and the choice among masters is largely a matter of taste, the basic ideas in the [1 e4] openings are easier to grasp and more readily applicable, ..." - GM Reuben Fine in a 1941 book for beginners

@mkubecek said in #20:

Morale of the story is: there are much better ways to pick an opening than "best line" suggested by Stockfish.

100% agreed!

Picking one randomly might be one of them. :-)

I was about to suggest weighting your best knowledge and avoiding the opponent usual choices, but this one is better.

@Amitinga said in #1:

I found this strange because it normally shows e4 as the best opening move.
Stockfish will evaluate different starting moves as "best" depending on the version, the computer it's running on, how long it's been thinking, and random chance. As an example, I ran SF 16 (the real stockfish, not the web assembly version that's available on your browser) on the starting position to depth 50 (it took about 4 minutes), and here are the evaluations, top moves, and thinking times it produced.

Notice how the "best" move changes quite frequently - this is because all of these moves are approximately equal, and so it's very random which happens to have the highest score.
1 +0.02 1.Nf3(0.00)
2 +0.16 1.c3 (0.00)
3 +0.50 1.Nf3(0.00)
4 +0.36 1.Nf3(0.00)
5 +0.40 1.g3 (0.00)
6 +0.43 1.e4 (0.00)
7 +0.43 1.e4 (0.00)
8 +0.43 1.e4 (0.00)
9 +0.51 1.e4 (0.00)
10 +0.43 1.e4 (0.01)
11 +0.40 1.e4 (0.01)
12 +0.30 1.e4 (0.01)
13 +0.39 1.e4 (0.02)
14 +0.26 1.e4 (0.03)
15 +0.36 1.e4 (0.03)
16 +0.28 1.e4 (0.06)
17 +0.32 1.d4 (0.09)
18 +0.33 1.d4 (0.09)
19 +0.33 1.e4 (0.14)
20 +0.34 1.e4 (0.17)
21 +0.36 1.e4 (0.21)
22 +0.29 1.d4 (0.46)
23 +0.26 1.d4 (0.50)
24 +0.35 1.d4 (0.53)
25 +0.29 1.d4 (0.77)
26 +0.29 1.d4 (0.99)
27 +0.27 1.d4 (1.61)
28 +0.28 1.d4 (1.78)
29 +0.22 1.d4 (2.62)
30 +0.20 1.d4 (3.41)
30 +0.23 1.d4 (3.43)
30 +0.27 1.d4 (3.54)
30 +0.23 1.d4 (3.69)
31 +0.21 1.d4 (3.99)
32 +0.25 1.d4 (4.45)
32 +0.21 1.d4 (4.85)
33 +0.19 1.d4 (5.85)
33 +0.22 1.d4 (6.03)
33 +0.26 1.d4 (6.16)
33 +0.22 1.Nf3(7.87)
34 +0.19 1.Nf3(9.04)
35 +0.22 1.e4 (13.75)
35 +0.22 1.e4 (13.77)
36 +0.18 1.e4 (13.91)
36 +0.21 1.e4 (13.93)
36 +0.25 1.e4 (14.27)
36 +0.23 1.e4 (14.32)
37 +0.25 1.e4 (15.27)
38 +0.21 1.e4 (17.80)
38 +0.18 1.e4 (17.82)
38 +0.21 1.Nf3(21.73)
38 +0.14 1.Nf3(24.21)
38 +0.18 1.Nf3(25.10)
39 +0.21 1.d4 (29.34)
39 +0.24 1.d4 (29.68)
39 +0.25 1.d4 (30.39)
40 +0.21 1.d4 (35.28)
40 +0.24 1.d4 (35.75)
40 +0.17 1.d4 (37.87)
40 +0.21 1.d4 (38.78)
41 +0.17 1.d4 (41.74)
41 +0.14 1.d4 (46.05)
41 +0.17 1.d4 (52.98)
41 +0.23 1.Nf3(55.09)
41 +0.25 1.Nf3(62.17)
42 +0.27 1.Nf3(69.48)
42 +0.27 1.Nf3(70.17)
43 +0.24 1.Nf3(72.53)
43 +0.27 1.Nf3(74.85)
43 +0.21 1.Nf3(78.82)
43 +0.23 1.Nf3(79.61)
44 +0.19 1.Nf3(82.36)
44 +0.20 1.Nf3(84.53)
45 +0.23 1.Nf3(86.96)
45 +0.17 1.Nf3(105.78)
45 +0.21 1.Nf3(112.64)
45 +0.20 1.Nf3(113.57)
46 +0.23 1.d4 (116.49)
46 +0.17 1.d4 (120.08)
46 +0.20 1.d4 (120.37)
47 +0.17 1.d4 (138.10)
48 +0.21 1.d4 (142.56)
48 +0.21 1.d4 (142.77)
49 +0.17 1.d4 (169.57)
49 +0.21 1.d4 (180.45)
49 +0.25 1.d4 (185.66)
49 +0.25 1.d4 (188.76)
50 +0.21 1.d4 (206.70)
50 +0.24 1.d4 (215.20)
50 +0.18 1.d4 (222.33)

I wonder if the relative abundance of 1.e4 and 1.d4 depending on depth levels (more or less equal until depth 38, then only 1.d4) has something to do with the Fine advice quoted by @kindaspongey and here we can see how 1.d4 requires more knowledge...

@OctoPinky said in #28:

I wonder if the relative abundance of 1.e4 and 1.d4 depending on depth levels (more or less equal until depth 38, then only 1.d4) has something to do with
I'm afraid not, it's just random noise. For example, I just ran the exact same analysis again (same engine, same machine) and Stockfish preferred 1. e4 from depth 41 to depth 50.

"... It is not so long ago that a game in which neither player advanced his e-pawn two squares was a rarity. Now such games, at least in the contests of masters, have become the rule.
Many causes have contributed thereto. The other openings are already well known, and to try to introduce winning innovations into them has become a very risky business. In the close openings, on the contrary, not only is our knowledge limited, but even our analytical research has failed so far to produce definite and incontrovertible conclusions, for the results become perceptible only after many moves in a long drawn-out ending.
The methods which operate in these openings are based not on 'combinational' but on 'positional' play. ..." - Emanuel Lasker (~1925)