1. @NoobBatter Botvinnik was a master of combining strategy with tactics. I think you shouldn't hate an opening just because a certain player played it.
2. @BlackSalt The problem with engines is it's lack of strategic knowledge and the lack of human understanding in defending: While a human would never want to play a position with doubled pawns just for some active pieces (In the sicilian Taimanov pin variation for instance), engines do quite fine defending such positions. The problem is: engines are great solving complicated positions and tactics, but are far back in strategic endgames or middlegames. They can't calculate strategic elements. I bet the ,,holy" depth of 40 can't show you the ideas or the pawn structure in a position (and Caro-Kann has very solid pawn structures). Also: Humans (at least the majority) don't like to play sharp positions where they have to defend; They want to be on the attacking site, because it's easier to play.
lichess.org/analysis/8/8/4K2k/R6P/8/P7/8/7r_b_-_-_0_1
This position is a draw and the tablebase can proof it. Engine still shows +2.
2. @BlackSalt The problem with engines is it's lack of strategic knowledge and the lack of human understanding in defending: While a human would never want to play a position with doubled pawns just for some active pieces (In the sicilian Taimanov pin variation for instance), engines do quite fine defending such positions. The problem is: engines are great solving complicated positions and tactics, but are far back in strategic endgames or middlegames. They can't calculate strategic elements. I bet the ,,holy" depth of 40 can't show you the ideas or the pawn structure in a position (and Caro-Kann has very solid pawn structures). Also: Humans (at least the majority) don't like to play sharp positions where they have to defend; They want to be on the attacking site, because it's easier to play.
lichess.org/analysis/8/8/4K2k/R6P/8/P7/8/7r_b_-_-_0_1
This position is a draw and the tablebase can proof it. Engine still shows +2.