In the post-game analysis, Stockfish considers the center game to be an inaccuracy:
lichess.org/0JhXrJL2/white#3I know that the Center Game isn't as good as some other openings, but is it really an inaccuracy?
The variation with 3. Nf3 is sound, as it most likely will transpose into a Scotch. The variation with 3.Qxd4 is also sound, but just a little bit more suspicious. I wouldn't consider either an inaccuracy, although I would label 3.Qxd4 as "missed potential" for white to try to get an opening advantage.
Stockfish is weak in openings without its book. Nobody knows anything for sure about openings. 2 d4 is no weaker than 2 Nf3, 2 Bc4, 2 Nc3 or whatever. 3 Qxd4 is no weaker than 3 Nf3 or 3 c3. The Scandinavian 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 or Nf6 is fully playable for black. Hence the Centre Game with the extra move 1 e4 is OK for white.
Top grandmasters do not even chase an opening advantage anymore cf. 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 or 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 d3.
@tpr If as you say "nobody knows anything for sure about openings," then how come you have the authority to label Stockfish as "weak in openings?" I disagree with your statement that 3. Qxd4 is no weaker than 3. Nf3 or 3. c3. Looking at the win percentages alone, black wins much more games if white plays 3. Qxd4 or 3. c3. Also, just because top grandmasters do not try for a noticeable opening advantage as much as they used to, does not mean that us amateurs should not play for more.
SF's evaluation is determined by material advantage. (of course, better positioned pieces receive more value, poorly placed pieces less value.)
Any and all gambit openings are given negative values, always an "inaccuracy" and sometimes "mistake".
It is a machine. Does not think for itself. It will crush you in 60 moves, never making a mistake, but in the opening, take it's evaluation with a grain of salt.
@ tpr I think you underestimate the engine's ability to play the opening well. I would agree that using an opening book is stronger than letting the engine calculate the best move for itself, although the difference in strength is minimal. As for your statement that "all gambit openings are given negative values," this is just erroneous. For example, after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Nd7 6.h4 Bxg5 7.hxg5 Qxg5 white is the one with the positive evaluation, even though white is down a pawn.
A position can only be won or a draw. All evaluations are estimations with a certain horizon effect for the time being.
Exactly. Kasparov says chess is a draw i.e. 0.00. So it does not really matter what first moves you play. If black is OK with 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5, then white surely is OK with 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 Qxd4. Objectively 3 Qxd4 is no weaker than 3 Nf3, 3 c3, or 3 Bc4. Bronstein called this opening dangerous i.e. dangerous for black. Stockfish cannot evaluate these positions in the opening correctly, as there are too many possibilities for all those pawns and pieces and the calculation horizon is too close. Only after some pawns have been moved and some exchanges have happened the evaluation gets more accurate. So we should disregard all Stockfish comments on the opening.
Using the argument that "chess is a draw" so that you can play whatever moves you want to play out of the opening is a terrible idea. Although I would agree with the stance that we should never try to copy the engine's opening repertoire move for move, disregarding all Stockfish comments on the openings is a massive waste of potential. In the recent Levon Aronian vs Ian Nepomniachtchi Sinquefield Cup game, do you think Aronian found the remarkable Rh1-h4 lift on his own?
