After running the Stockfish analysis for several hours on a spare machine I had I've found that at Depth 55 the best first move for white becomes e4 again; currently the cloud says that it is Nf3 based on a depth of 53. I was able to get to Depth 55 twice and it said e4 both times, although the first time the page refreshed itself before I could take a screenshot (probably because I was away for too long since I left it idle running on its own the whole time), but the second time I was able to take a screenshot before it refreshed so I actually can confirm it if necessary.
Both moves Nf3 and e4 are playable and close in evaluation; where White maintains their 1 tempo advantage over Black without making any obvious positional weaknesses, but the position (I believe) from the starting position is not White to play and win, but most likely it is White to play and gain an advantage more than White's starting advantage which is worth probably about ~1/3 of a pawn, given the probability of doing so. Is the better try at gaining an advantage, e4 or Nf3? Looking at what both moves do, it is hard to tell at a glance. Which is better - staking claim to the center, while opening up light square bishop and queen lines, or simply developing a piece to a square that maximally controls the center? If the move f4 isn't playable in the opening by White, then Nf3 makes a whole lot of sense to play; otherwise the move e4 doesn't have any apparent disadvantages other than it can be attacked via d5, f5, or Nf6. However, each of these continuations seem to favor White because of the space grabbing gaining tempo move e5 against Nf6, because tempo can be gained with d5, after the exchange of pawns, and developing the knight to c3 with tempo, and the move f5 by Black seems to be a non-sensible gambit.
Also, considering the move 1. d4 is also possible too, and stakes claim in the center, while supporting the probable Nf3 move in the future.
More importantly than the best starting move, I think, is the best starting system, or plan of moves. It is development of minor pieces, castling, and connecting rooks without losing tempo. What is the best way to accomplish this? Well, I've even seen Alphazero against Stockfish, where Alpha was White, going after the opening plan consisting of a traditional e4,d4,Nf3,Nc3 against Stockfish's opening setup. That might not be the best initial plan by white, but it is something noteworthy and is hard to beat - even by computer chess engines. What should Black play against such a setup? If Black can prevent or delay any of these moves, then that, I'd think, would be a good defensive plan to it. White's claim of the center, given these opening moves, as a general plan, seems like a difficult position to play against.
Also, considering the move 1. d4 is also possible too, and stakes claim in the center, while supporting the probable Nf3 move in the future.
More importantly than the best starting move, I think, is the best starting system, or plan of moves. It is development of minor pieces, castling, and connecting rooks without losing tempo. What is the best way to accomplish this? Well, I've even seen Alphazero against Stockfish, where Alpha was White, going after the opening plan consisting of a traditional e4,d4,Nf3,Nc3 against Stockfish's opening setup. That might not be the best initial plan by white, but it is something noteworthy and is hard to beat - even by computer chess engines. What should Black play against such a setup? If Black can prevent or delay any of these moves, then that, I'd think, would be a good defensive plan to it. White's claim of the center, given these opening moves, as a general plan, seems like a difficult position to play against.
no matter what, 2 moves will have minute differences ( maybe +0.43 and +0.45) so e4 d4 c4 nf3 etc all are playable.
Ok this is all cool but, you know, we're human, so...
You're both right, this in and of itself is not really anything major or game-changing, I just found it kind of interesting so I thought I'd check myself to see how far I could get and report what it said. For those curious on what opening it came up with beyond just e4, the result was the Spanish Opening.
@Akarsh_2010 said in #3:
> no matter what, 2 moves will have minute differences ( maybe +0.43 and +0.45) so e4 d4 c4 nf3 etc all are playable.
At depth 55 - that is a chessgame, prospectively, where White has played 28 moves and Black has played 27 moves. (pruned tree with many paths left unexplored).
At depth 2 - that considers all the moves you can play 1 move deep, and replys the opponent can make 1 move deep. (400 chess positions, exactly from the starting position).
What's a real 0.02 net advantage worth comparing 1 move to make vs another at depth 55 compared to a pure evaluation made at depth 2? If the path to checkmate can't be found, for sure, then all you have is an advantageous plan with an opening move behind it. Do you have a better plan to play, statisitcally, with e4 compared to Nf3, with the pruned tree at depth 55? Idk, but, failure to plan (not looking at a chess position beyond 1 move) is planning to fail. I'd reccommend studying both of these opening plans at depth 55, and then decide from those chess positions at that depth level why a position is preferred at that depth level compared to the other. If you can understand that, then you can understand the 0.02 difference that the engine is considering for that advantage.
> no matter what, 2 moves will have minute differences ( maybe +0.43 and +0.45) so e4 d4 c4 nf3 etc all are playable.
At depth 55 - that is a chessgame, prospectively, where White has played 28 moves and Black has played 27 moves. (pruned tree with many paths left unexplored).
At depth 2 - that considers all the moves you can play 1 move deep, and replys the opponent can make 1 move deep. (400 chess positions, exactly from the starting position).
What's a real 0.02 net advantage worth comparing 1 move to make vs another at depth 55 compared to a pure evaluation made at depth 2? If the path to checkmate can't be found, for sure, then all you have is an advantageous plan with an opening move behind it. Do you have a better plan to play, statisitcally, with e4 compared to Nf3, with the pruned tree at depth 55? Idk, but, failure to plan (not looking at a chess position beyond 1 move) is planning to fail. I'd reccommend studying both of these opening plans at depth 55, and then decide from those chess positions at that depth level why a position is preferred at that depth level compared to the other. If you can understand that, then you can understand the 0.02 difference that the engine is considering for that advantage.
Which engine is the next question. A0 preferred d4 because e5 is such a good answers to e4. Stockfish with NN evaluation will quite likely give different first move from stockfish with traditional evaluation function
@petri999 said in #7:
> Which engine is the next question. A0 preferred d4 because e5 is such a good answers to e4. Stockfish with NN evaluation will quite likely give different first move from stockfish with traditional evaluation function
Their programming differences result in different strengths/weaknesses at the roughly the ~same ELO level of gameplay.
And, while Alpha prefers 1. d4 instead of Stockfish's 1. e4, one can question which playing style they would prefer to choose and study.
In my personal opinion, looking at both moves - a player who prefers to compound their tempo advantage should play 1. e4 (opening lanes to both queen and light square bishop); whereas, a player looking to control the center better should play 1. d4.
Also, is d5 any worse of a response to White's d4 compared to e5 being a response to White's e4? In comparing both positions, I think 2. d4 is easier to play going for the Center game, than 2. e4 (Blackmar Diemar gambit), given my opening plan. So, I think Fish's 1. e4 would be my preferance for that reason (going after a plan for myself), even though, I realize Black may want to go for 1. e5 themself, and denying their plan might be a better style of playing, potientally. Also, if 1. d4, playing 2. c4 is better than playing the Blackmar Diemar gambit, I think; whereas, 1. e4 2. f4 is clearly worse for White to consider (as the King's Gambit is busted), but the Queen's gambit gives White good opportunity. But, which is better: the Queen's Gambit or the Center game? That's as far as my analysis goes, simply. On one hand 2. c4 is protected via Qa4+ and is a flank pawn that will trade for Black's center pawn. On the other hand, 2. d4 in the center game develops and threatens with tempo! Which style does anyone prefer and why? Which style is better?
> Which engine is the next question. A0 preferred d4 because e5 is such a good answers to e4. Stockfish with NN evaluation will quite likely give different first move from stockfish with traditional evaluation function
Their programming differences result in different strengths/weaknesses at the roughly the ~same ELO level of gameplay.
And, while Alpha prefers 1. d4 instead of Stockfish's 1. e4, one can question which playing style they would prefer to choose and study.
In my personal opinion, looking at both moves - a player who prefers to compound their tempo advantage should play 1. e4 (opening lanes to both queen and light square bishop); whereas, a player looking to control the center better should play 1. d4.
Also, is d5 any worse of a response to White's d4 compared to e5 being a response to White's e4? In comparing both positions, I think 2. d4 is easier to play going for the Center game, than 2. e4 (Blackmar Diemar gambit), given my opening plan. So, I think Fish's 1. e4 would be my preferance for that reason (going after a plan for myself), even though, I realize Black may want to go for 1. e5 themself, and denying their plan might be a better style of playing, potientally. Also, if 1. d4, playing 2. c4 is better than playing the Blackmar Diemar gambit, I think; whereas, 1. e4 2. f4 is clearly worse for White to consider (as the King's Gambit is busted), but the Queen's gambit gives White good opportunity. But, which is better: the Queen's Gambit or the Center game? That's as far as my analysis goes, simply. On one hand 2. c4 is protected via Qa4+ and is a flank pawn that will trade for Black's center pawn. On the other hand, 2. d4 in the center game develops and threatens with tempo! Which style does anyone prefer and why? Which style is better?
It beyound my - and probably yours - to reason what is objectively best move. But as for agression: a0 was ultra aggressive and played d4 so difference in this respect might be not important - for ultra skilled players that is.
As for what is best for you obviously your reasoning is what matters. I prefer c4 as it usually allows me arrange my pieces before any serious confrontation
As for what is best for you obviously your reasoning is what matters. I prefer c4 as it usually allows me arrange my pieces before any serious confrontation
@petri999 said in #9:
> It beyound my - and probably yours - to reason what is objectively best move. But as for agression: a0 was ultra aggressive and played d4 so difference in this respect might be not important - for ultra skilled players that is.
>
> As for what is best for you obviously your reasoning is what matters. I prefer c4 as it usually allows me arrange my pieces before any serious confrontation
The idea of the move 1. c4; the way I think about it is: It creates a (knight shield) preparing the move Nc3. Also, that move controls the d5 square, which even though Black can still play (if Black wanted to) challenging the shield, going after White's c3 knight, their pawn to d5 challenging c4, gives Black no advantage after the pawn exchange in the center occurs, and White develops Nc3 with tempo against Black's queen if Black challenges it on move 1.
Also, unlike 1. d4 which challenges Black's idea of playing e5, making it ~unplayable, White's game appears to be (according to stockfish evaluation score), approximately still the same as 1. e4, which for a use of tempo that strengthen's White's position, doesn't develop a piece, where Black can still play the move e5. The tempo appears not to be wasted for not developing a piece.
The English Opening (just like the Sicilian Defense is playable for Black), not only is playable for White, but being ahead +1 tempo in a Sicilian Defense with colors reveresed, I'd feel more strongly about White's position than Black's, even though Fish's evaluation score seems to be what it is.
I feel the English Opening plan (I feel) is a good one, and comparing it to other openings to me (seems to be more about preference), than having any extra checkmating chances in the middlegame and endgame. I can't think of any way to refute that opening. It's just as solid as KP, in comparison, I think. Also, comparing to QP opening - that seems to be a different game.
One thing I can handle better is symetrical KP and symetrical QP games as White.
But, how do you handle a symetrical English? That game, I consider frustrating to play. I wonder: How would you handle it that sort of position, given your opening plan?
> It beyound my - and probably yours - to reason what is objectively best move. But as for agression: a0 was ultra aggressive and played d4 so difference in this respect might be not important - for ultra skilled players that is.
>
> As for what is best for you obviously your reasoning is what matters. I prefer c4 as it usually allows me arrange my pieces before any serious confrontation
The idea of the move 1. c4; the way I think about it is: It creates a (knight shield) preparing the move Nc3. Also, that move controls the d5 square, which even though Black can still play (if Black wanted to) challenging the shield, going after White's c3 knight, their pawn to d5 challenging c4, gives Black no advantage after the pawn exchange in the center occurs, and White develops Nc3 with tempo against Black's queen if Black challenges it on move 1.
Also, unlike 1. d4 which challenges Black's idea of playing e5, making it ~unplayable, White's game appears to be (according to stockfish evaluation score), approximately still the same as 1. e4, which for a use of tempo that strengthen's White's position, doesn't develop a piece, where Black can still play the move e5. The tempo appears not to be wasted for not developing a piece.
The English Opening (just like the Sicilian Defense is playable for Black), not only is playable for White, but being ahead +1 tempo in a Sicilian Defense with colors reveresed, I'd feel more strongly about White's position than Black's, even though Fish's evaluation score seems to be what it is.
I feel the English Opening plan (I feel) is a good one, and comparing it to other openings to me (seems to be more about preference), than having any extra checkmating chances in the middlegame and endgame. I can't think of any way to refute that opening. It's just as solid as KP, in comparison, I think. Also, comparing to QP opening - that seems to be a different game.
One thing I can handle better is symetrical KP and symetrical QP games as White.
But, how do you handle a symetrical English? That game, I consider frustrating to play. I wonder: How would you handle it that sort of position, given your opening plan?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.