[quote]Show me a single opening where you can play better than an engine? [/quote]
in looking at chess games and trying to build my own books, i CONSTANTLY see stockfish recommendations that perform TERRIBLY over the board as played by actual HUMANS. in one particular position SF rated as +20, human players were still LOSING more than winning!
i only use stockfish to verify moves, for the most part, unless its evaluation is at least a full pawn stronger. otherwise, i prefer HUMAN moves. not only will you be learning moves that make sense to actual humans, but you can see how a move performs against another move (it's good to have a sample size of at least 100 games each), and even better, see what to expect in the next move. you waste no time chasing engine or GM moves you'll never actually see over the board. i'm finding AWESOME theory on lichess like that. i just finished my "ice queen" book, and it is winning (I'm talking +3 or MORE) in 99% of the games! only today did i find ANY games that were less than equal. it was just a few lines, and even then, players aren't making stockfish moves and exploiting anyways.
i also hate how wishy washy engines are. they make a lot of "non moves"... pushing for 1/100th of a pawn instead of making something happen. i WISH i had access to junior. THAT engine has an appetite! i've read that leela is better in the openings too where stockfish is better at endgames.
if you ask me, look at a database and write your own theory... picking and chosing moves you like (I REFUSE to ever play pieces back to their starting squares! fritz 6 was HIDEOUS for that! i quit using it to write theory because the free crafty15 that came with it was actually much more aggressive. i could play against fritz into the 30s any day, but crafty would do the job in 20 moves. THAT is my measure of a "good engine".
leela is reported to play much more "human" and it loves gambits. there was a game where it sacked a rook just to get it out of the way before eventually winning.
if you're using them for theory, they'll steer you towards moves humans don't work well with sometimes. they're better for evaluating human moves than suggesting them as far as i'm concerned.
@ogpu-jd
The DTM figure I quoted is in White's moves.
Figures quoted on the syzygy-tables.info site are based on ply, which accounts for the factor of roughly 2 discrepency.
If the site shows DTM figures next to a move you can take that (+1 to make the move) as the distance to mate, in ply, with no 50 move or triple repetition rule in effect. In your link it shows minimum DTM 86 ply after Kc2 so 87 ply altogether or 44 moves by White and 43 by Black.
The DTZ figures do not tell you the distance to mate. They have to be read with care in any case and if the 50 move and triple repetition rules are in effect apply only to ply count 0 positions. They're connected with the distance to either mate or the ply count being reset (but, in particular circumstances which don't affect the outcome of recommended play, can be out by 1 ply) and the figure shown may have 100 added as a flag to show that in some phase of the mate, but not necessarily the current phase, the 50 move rule will be exceeded.
E.g. If you follow this link: https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=1n1k4/6Q1/5KP1/8/7b/1r6/8/8_w_-_-_0_1 you see no DTM figures so you cannot tell the distance to mate. It shows DTZ of 109, which means in fact there are at least 9 or at least 109 ply to mate or resetting the ply count to a position which is winning without the 50 move rule in effect, but the leading "1" (could be "n") indicates it is not winning with the rule in effect. (You have to work out for yourself or follow the recommended moves to find out if the figure 9 or 109 represents the ply to mate or resetting the ply count in the position you provide - in this case it's 9 ply to reset the ply count.) The DTM without the rule is in fact 549 moves by White or 1097 ply, but not shown on the site.
I didn't understand your reference to "sharing".
Edit: OK, I twigged "sharing". You're talking about the two fingers icon.