What's wrong with 1. e4 e5 ?

Carlsen stated, that the right answers to 1. e4 are c5 and e5. I don#t think that e5 is a mistake, even french remains playable ;-)

At what depth? Engines can't be taken seriously at low depths in a 32-men position.

As long as the opening you play doesn't give your opponent a good middlegame. It's good

Stockfish recently talking to Leela:"Shall I say on the analysisboard, e5 is as answer for 1.e4 is mistake, just to confuse some humans?"

Leela:"Ha, i bet you don't dare"

1-0 for Stockfish

According to the article "Learn from your mistakes" here
lichess.org/blog/WFvLpiQAACMA8e9D/learn-from-your-mistakes

"If at least two masters have played a move in tournament situation, then the move must be playable! So that's how it works now. The learning feature double checks Stockfish's decisions against the masters database, and if you play a master move, then you won't be told it was a mistake."

So did the program get changed at some point? I assume "mistake" in that last sentence meant inaccuracies/mistakes/blunders.

So this is the game OP talks about:

There's usually like a 0.2 error in Stockfish's evaluation. I've tried analyzing exactly the same games and it usually gives different evaluations to the same position.

What we have here is an extreme case of a large double error, it can be considered bug even. First it evaluates e4 as 0, which should be closer to +0.4. And it evaluates e5 as +0.6 which should still be around 0.4. Taking the difference between these two wrong evaluations (0.6) Stockfish considers e5 an inaccuracy. But in truth e5 is one of the best responses to e4. You can check out other computer evaluated games in Master's database to confirm that your game is an extreme case:

Wow 7 downvotes atm for #10. I mean, really?
I know e5 is playable. But only c5 is aggressive enough for me

Well, i like the french exchange. I get 50% with it. 50% win, 50 % draw ;-)

so here's a stupid question..there's at least 5 centuries of chess theory ------------------------ which results in the french, english, spanish, italian, russian, ,,,,,,,etc openings. Anyone know lwhat does AI use for an opening, and then how does it approach mid and end games? i'm assuming pre-AI computers (deep blue etc) use standard opening theory, because to my understanding, that is what was programmed into them. but i assume AI uses it's own theory................ all the responses in this thread are conventional chess theory.

however, i'm not knowledgeable about AI...and by AI i mean specifically the latest generation of computers - i believe that is alphazero, etc...