There are soo many opening for white and it's really hard to choose a good opening. What do you think is a good opening for white?
#1: There probably isn't a "Best" Opening for White.
I recommend you decide on an Opening by going on YouTube, looking at a few different Openings, then pick the 1 you think looks coolest.
Also, stick to that Opening, to gain experience with it.
I recommend you decide on an Opening by going on YouTube, looking at a few different Openings, then pick the 1 you think looks coolest.
Also, stick to that Opening, to gain experience with it.
well for both sides the best is bulls head but thats a position not a opening
Look at the other threads, it's just been proven that 1.f3 is the best opening by sf14 up to depth over 40!! Huge chess news.
Size your opening like a pair of pants.
An opening must fit your style of play.
Small, medium, large... Closed, Semi-open, open games.
Look into your chess insights and the answer is there.
Find the opening you play best in the first phase.
lichess.org/insights/Toscani/acpl/opening/phase:1
My lowest centipawn opening (41.82) C00 French Defence.
But was it any good for my middle games? (Average centipawn loss 91.16)
Openings are made to gain an advantage in the middle game.
So the following opening should be best for me.
lichess.org/insights/Toscani/acpl/opening/phase:2
D00 Queen's Pawn Game (Average centipawn loss value of 79.23)
If you want to practice your best white opening, use your chess insights and see your openings that have the best centipawn valued openings for the middle games. My best is not my most popular opening.
There is a difference between best and popular. Avoiding gambits is a choice.
The following link gives a list of common Queen pawn openings ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Pawn_Game#Terminology
An opening must fit your style of play.
Small, medium, large... Closed, Semi-open, open games.
Look into your chess insights and the answer is there.
Find the opening you play best in the first phase.
lichess.org/insights/Toscani/acpl/opening/phase:1
My lowest centipawn opening (41.82) C00 French Defence.
But was it any good for my middle games? (Average centipawn loss 91.16)
Openings are made to gain an advantage in the middle game.
So the following opening should be best for me.
lichess.org/insights/Toscani/acpl/opening/phase:2
D00 Queen's Pawn Game (Average centipawn loss value of 79.23)
If you want to practice your best white opening, use your chess insights and see your openings that have the best centipawn valued openings for the middle games. My best is not my most popular opening.
There is a difference between best and popular. Avoiding gambits is a choice.
The following link gives a list of common Queen pawn openings ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Pawn_Game#Terminology
@Buttercup22 said in #4:
> Look at the other threads, it's just been proven that 1.f3 is the best opening by sf14 up to depth over 40!! Huge chess news.
This can't be true, a depth over 40!! is simply not possible. 40! is already more than 8*10^47 (google it), so by Stirling's approximation (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling%27s_approximation), 40!! is more than 10^(10^49). A depth of that (assuming that almost always there is at least one choice of move) implies at least 2^(10^(10^49)) positions analyzed by sf. Since there are less than 10^100 atoms in the observable universe, I think you can see it's just impossible.
> Look at the other threads, it's just been proven that 1.f3 is the best opening by sf14 up to depth over 40!! Huge chess news.
This can't be true, a depth over 40!! is simply not possible. 40! is already more than 8*10^47 (google it), so by Stirling's approximation (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling%27s_approximation), 40!! is more than 10^(10^49). A depth of that (assuming that almost always there is at least one choice of move) implies at least 2^(10^(10^49)) positions analyzed by sf. Since there are less than 10^100 atoms in the observable universe, I think you can see it's just impossible.
@VBCBCBCB said in #6:
> This can't be true, a depth over 40!! is simply not possible. 40! is already more than 8*10^47 (google it), so by Stirling's approximation (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling%27s_approximation), 40!! is more than 10^(10^49). A depth of that (assuming that almost always there is at least one choice of move) implies at least 2^(10^(10^49)) positions analyzed by sf. Since there are less than 10^100 atoms in the observable universe, I think you can see it's just impossible.
I agree and I asked this same question in the thread where someone said that sf evaluated it to this depth. I made this comment a little tongue in cheek. But I wonder what the explanation is. I don't think the OP just made it up. And no one in that thread said that he did. So there is some reason they are saying it's to that depth.
> This can't be true, a depth over 40!! is simply not possible. 40! is already more than 8*10^47 (google it), so by Stirling's approximation (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling%27s_approximation), 40!! is more than 10^(10^49). A depth of that (assuming that almost always there is at least one choice of move) implies at least 2^(10^(10^49)) positions analyzed by sf. Since there are less than 10^100 atoms in the observable universe, I think you can see it's just impossible.
I agree and I asked this same question in the thread where someone said that sf evaluated it to this depth. I made this comment a little tongue in cheek. But I wonder what the explanation is. I don't think the OP just made it up. And no one in that thread said that he did. So there is some reason they are saying it's to that depth.
<Comment deleted by user>
@Toscani said in #5:
>My lowest centipawn opening ...
Avoiding mistakes is good, but if you play dull openings as a result, it's also harder for your opponent to blunder. I would go for 'rating gain' by opening to determinate where you performed best.
Even more important: Is there a way to show all ECO codes at once or do I have to go through all openings by batches of 12?
>My lowest centipawn opening ...
Avoiding mistakes is good, but if you play dull openings as a result, it's also harder for your opponent to blunder. I would go for 'rating gain' by opening to determinate where you performed best.
Even more important: Is there a way to show all ECO codes at once or do I have to go through all openings by batches of 12?
@Hasnula said in #1:
> There are soo many opening for white and it's really hard to choose a good opening. What do you think is a good opening for white?
In my opinion your opening choice should be based on the playing style you have (dynamic, positional or maybe all-round) and which kind of chess positions you like and which ones you are good at.
For example if you are a positional player, there is Catalan, QGD, English, 1.Nf3 among others. If you are a dynamic player 1.b3 or 1.e4 and also English (e.g. Aronian plays it) might suit you.
If you like endgames or if you are good at them then for example a reversed Dragon and Ruy Lopez exchange can give you a nice pawn structure.
> There are soo many opening for white and it's really hard to choose a good opening. What do you think is a good opening for white?
In my opinion your opening choice should be based on the playing style you have (dynamic, positional or maybe all-round) and which kind of chess positions you like and which ones you are good at.
For example if you are a positional player, there is Catalan, QGD, English, 1.Nf3 among others. If you are a dynamic player 1.b3 or 1.e4 and also English (e.g. Aronian plays it) might suit you.
If you like endgames or if you are good at them then for example a reversed Dragon and Ruy Lopez exchange can give you a nice pawn structure.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.