if the best move for white is e4 most likely its the same for e5
it’s not lol, only at absolute engine-level play with 100% accuracy. Even to top grandmasters like Carlsen, 1. e4 should give the same results as 1. d4 or even 1. Nf3.
the computers consider e5 to be better because it is more solid (you get counterattacking chances in the middlegame usually)
c5 is their 2nd pick by not much and it gives much more imbalance and black gets quicker and more counterattacking chances. your pawn structure is also better at the cost of behind quite behind in development
if the best move for white is e4 most likely its the same for e5
it’s not lol, only at absolute engine-level play with 100% accuracy. Even to top grandmasters like Carlsen, 1. e4 should give the same results as 1. d4 or even 1. Nf3.
wait we aren't talking about engine-level?
You're all wrong. The Alekhines Defense is the best
...He's talking about Sicilian, French, and Open Game.
if the best move for white is e4 most likely its the same for e5
Well… the best move for White has been determined to be c4… e4 is actually the fourth best, behind d4, which is behind Nf3, which is behind c4. A0’s “primary variation” aka best chess moves for both sides is actually the Reversed Sicilian Dragon. Lc0 seems to mostly agree, but it places more stock in Nf3 than A0 did.
if the best move for white is e4 most likely its the same for e5
Well… the best move for White has been determined to be c4… e4 is actually the fourth best, behind d4, which is behind Nf3, which is behind c4. A0’s “primary variation” aka best chess moves for both sides is actually the Reversed Sicilian Dragon. Lc0 seems to mostly agree, but it places more stock in Nf3 than A0 did.
A0 had beaten Stockfish before it became as developed as today. Btw how do you even know what A0's recommending rn? Sure, we haven't seen A0 play against Stockfish for a while but that also means we don't know it's capabilities against Stockfish either.
Right now, this is true:
Tablebase draw
Tablebase draw
Tablebase draw
Tablebase draw.
Add in all the pieces (in a future, hypothetical full tablebase), and the outcome will still be the same, due to the perfect symmetry from both sides: a tablebase draw, no matter which of the four first moves you choose.
(Of course, the tricky nature of chess still remains; there's still tons of room for both players to go wrong along the way ...)
Zero for logic.
This is the same as your last diagram except the unmoved pawns are placed symmetrically on the g file instead of the d file.
It's a tablebase win for Black.
So if we were to apply your "reasoning", your future, hypothetical full tablebase would declare the position after 1.e4 c5 to be simultaneously a draw and a win for Black.
Table base explanations don't work because they exclude the other pieces. Chess is not a 4-piece table base, there are 32 pieces. Some of these table bases require to push the pawns and promote, and I know you can't just do that in a regular game. Various other reasons like attacks on the king, excluding castling, and defended squares can also support this.
We haven't got any engines that play with 100% accuracy yet.
We haven't got any engines that play with 100% accuracy yet.
How do you know? We actually have an engine that can guarantee 100% accuracy, Stockfish. However, you need a high depth to 100% guaranteed. This also applies to any other minimax-based engine if they can calculate the game out to it's conclusion.
We haven't got any engines that play with 100% accuracy yet.
How do you know? We actually have an engine that can guarantee 100% accuracy, Stockfish. However, you need a high depth to 100% guaranteed. This also applies to any other minimax-based engine if they can calculate the game out to it's conclusion.
No it doesn't. If it tries to calculate to the conclusion of the game it loses on time before making any moves. the percentage of accurate moves is then 100 x 0/0 which is indeterminate, not 100.
Zero for logic.
This is the same as your last diagram except the unmoved pawns are placed symmetrically on the g file instead of the d file.
It's a tablebase win for Black.
So if we were to apply your "reasoning", your future, hypothetical full tablebase would declare the position after 1.e4 c5 to be simultaneously a draw and a win for Black.
That's because White's king has to stop Black's passed pawn in that endgame. You've made White's c-pawn miraculously vanish. Passed pawns change the dynamic of things.
In a typical opening position, 1...c5 does not give Black an instant passed pawn. White would also have his remaining pawns as well, on their starting squares.
Something like this would be a more logical way to assess things:
Tablebase draw.
We haven't got any engines that play with 100% accuracy yet.
How do you know? We actually have an engine that can guarantee 100% accuracy, Stockfish. However, you need a high depth to 100% guaranteed. This also applies to any other minimax-based engine if they can calculate the game out to it's conclusion.
No it doesn't. If it tries to calculate to the conclusion of the game it loses on time before making any moves. the percentage of accurate moves is then 100 x 0/0 which is indeterminate, not 100.
I didn't account for loss of time because I thought we were talking about untimed chess.
Zero for logic.
This is the same as your last diagram except the unmoved pawns are placed symmetrically on the g file instead of the d file.
It's a tablebase win for Black.
So if we were to apply your "reasoning", your future, hypothetical full tablebase would declare the position after 1.e4 c5 to be simultaneously a draw and a win for Black.
That's because White's king has to stop Black's passed pawn in that endgame. You've made White's c-pawn miraculously vanish. Passed pawns change the dynamic of things.
In a typical opening position, 1...c5 does not give Black an instant passed pawn. White would also have his remaining pawns as well, on their starting squares.
Something like this would be a more logical way to assess things:
Tablebase draw.
This isn't supposed to be about endgames?
We haven't got any engines that play with 100% accuracy yet.
How do you know? We actually have an engine that can guarantee 100% accuracy, Stockfish. However, you need a high depth to 100% guaranteed. This also applies to any other minimax-based engine if they can calculate the game out to it's conclusion.
No it doesn't. If it tries to calculate to the conclusion of the game it loses on time before making any moves. the percentage of accurate moves is then 100 x 0/0 which is indeterminate, not 100.
I didn't account for loss of time because I thought we were talking about untimed chess.
Same thing. The machine on which it's running probably have crumbled into dust long before it makes a move. Indeed so might the whole universe.
In any case SF is designed to play FIDE competition rules - it's actually designed to not play basic rules accurately (which also have no 50 move or triple repetition rules). In fact it doesn't even play simple K+R v K positions accurately with realistic time controls unless you give it a tablebase.
We haven't got any engines that play with 100% accuracy yet.
How do you know? We actually have an engine that can guarantee 100% accuracy, Stockfish. However, you need a high depth to 100% guaranteed. This also applies to any other minimax-based engine if they can calculate the game out to it's conclusion.
No it doesn't. If it tries to calculate to the conclusion of the game it loses on time before making any moves. the percentage of accurate moves is then 100 x 0/0 which is indeterminate, not 100.
I didn't account for loss of time because I thought we were talking about untimed chess.
Same thing. The machine on which it's running probably have crumbled into dust long before it makes a move. Indeed so might the whole universe.
In any case SF is designed to play FIDE competition rules - it's actually designed to not play basic rules accurately (which also have no 50 move or triple repetition rules). In fact it doesn't even play simple K+R v K positions accurately with realistic time controls unless you give it a tablebase.
The Stockfish I use accounts for thrice fold repetition and 50-move rule. Also I really don't know how you got that it doesn't play king and rook accurately. Depth 18 is enough for king and rook and depth 18 takes a very short time to get to. For an example, Stockfish checkmated me in 8 seconds with depth 22.
This isn't supposed to be about endgames?
Fill in the rest of the pieces, and the outcome will still be the same.
We just aren't technologically capable of having 32-man tablebases yet (if ever).
if the best move for white is e4 most likely its the same for e5