Forums

First Moves Tier List

Sort:
TitanChess666

Explanation of tiers:

S-Best first moves, the only ones really employed at a high level

A-First moves that do give white an advantage but aren't considered as dangerous and see top level play occasionally or in faster time controls

B-Moves that are about equal. From B tier onwards, these moves don't get played at all. B-tier first moves can be main weapons of club players or bullet players.

C-Already black can gain the upper hand with precise play against these moves, but normally the positions are just equal. Very rarely employed at any level.

D-These first moves actively harm white's position because they either fail to develop effectively or weaken crucial squares

F-White is really trying to shoot themselves in the foot. These moves seriously compromise white's king safety. Only played as a joke or to show dominance i.e. "I'm so much better than you that I can play garbage openings and still win"

Dabs2

No way a3 and h3 are above b3

samuelebeckis

1. f4 ... So popular alternative, so losing!

1. Nf3 is the absolute best, however it is not for everybody wink.png

Duck

f4, a3, and h3 are on Tier B????!?!?!? 

Dabs2

F4 isn't as as bad as a3 and h3 tho and its somewhat playable but losing

Dabs2

LOL f4 is def losing, 0.42 advantage to black after first move

samuelebeckis
Steven-ODonoghue wrote:
Dabs2 wrote:

F4 isn't as as bad as a3 and h3 tho and its somewhat playable but losing

1.f4 isn't losing, actually it is about equal with best play.

1.a3 and especially 1.h3 are certainly worse.

All openings are equal with the "best play", including f3 and g4.

The fact is that it's so hard to understand how to win with 1. f4 that even who likes it (including professionals) and who is well prepared to play it, in most of cases, finally loses. This is what I mean when I say "losing" opening.

Dabs2

G4 doesn't technically lose by force, Nakamura played it against Mamedyarov in 2019, but I agree, it is definitely the worst.

samuelebeckis

Bobby Fischer could win with any openings. 

Nigel Short referred to have played online against Bobby Fischer -- not 100% he was him, let's say 99% -- and the pseudo-Bobby always won by playing the worst possible openings. Example:

White defeated Nigel Short by making even more weird moves with his King (not reported here).

Another example:

And again, the anonymous white player finally defeated Nigel Short by playing that absurd opening.

That's why Bobby Fischer invented Chess960, because only one starting position was too trivial for him.

--o--   --o--

1. g4 is a forced win for Black?? Never heard that and I can't believe it is true. There are some sextillion of sextillion of googol of games starting with such move... I'm sure no human, nor program, nor A.I. can prove that 1. g4 is wrong. Instead the professor Grob proved that it is at least playable!!

In conclusion, the whole Chess opening theory is, for me, extremely fashinating and, at the same time, extremely opinable!

--o--   --o--

Regards wink.png

ShouldBreezi

b3 is definitely misplaced, it's probably high B or low A

ShouldBreezi

So is Nc3, many in the B tier are worse to play

tygxc

#1
AlphaZero has ranked all 20 possible first moves
d4 > e4 > Nf3 > c4 > e3 > g3 > Nc3 > c3 > b3 > a3 >
h3 > d3 > f4 > b4 > Nh3 > h4 > Na3 > f3 > g4 > a4
see Figure 31
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2111.09259.pdf 

ShouldBreezi

Yeah I figured Nc3 and b3 were way better than the list said they were

But this is engine after all

How are h3 and a3 better than Nc3, b3, and d3. Possibly even c3 as well

tygxc

#17
No
Nc3 > c3 > b3 > a3 > h3
It is objective calculation, not subjective human opinion. 

TitanChess666
Steven-ODonoghue wrote:

1.Nc3 is just equal, and deserves to be placed higher than most of the B tier. Black cannot 'gain the upper hand'. Yes, after 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4, black has a very, very slight advantage if he plays a few accurate moves, but white can just play 2.d4 and transpose into a Jobava London with an equal position which is becoming more and more trendy in GM play 

 

I also disagree that 1.f3 is worse than 1.Nh3, since most likely they can transpose if white plays 1.f3 2.g3 3.Nh3 4.Bg2 5.Nf2 6.0-0 or something like that, with an almost playable position.

Maybe the engine says it's fine for white, but in practice the positions are very dangerous. For example, here's a line I prepared against someone who does this:

you are telling me you would rather be white, and face the pawn storm on the queenside while the black king sits secure in the center?

TitanChess666
Dabs2 wrote:

No way a3 and h3 are above b3

In most positions, a3 and h3 end up being useful moves, as they take away the b4 and g4 squares from the black minor pieces. White can still choose between different setups based on what black is doing and still end up with a useful move extra. b3 however, commits the bishop to b2 early and black can take the center with e5 and white can't follow up with e4 because after Nf6 Nc3 Bc5 he has a worse version of the italian (despite being up a tempo)

TitanChess666
ScatteredWealth wrote:

f4, a3, and h3 are on Tier B????!?!?!? 

I don't know why people think 1.f4 is bad. The dutch is quite popular with black and it doesn't lose by force so I don't understand how 1.f4 could be that bad. It's equal according to my engine

TitanChess666
Steven-ODonoghue wrote:
TitanChess666 wrote:

you are telling me you would rather be white, and face the pawn storm on the queenside while the black king sits secure in the center?

Probably not. Black has the comfortable side of equality there. But in those lines, White's king usually does better on f2 instead of castling. 11.0-0-0 looks a bit suicidal

well then you thought just like my FM opponent in one of my round robin tournaments, unfortunately Kf2? is -1 for black!

tygxc

#21
"I don't know why people think 1.f4 is bad. The dutch is quite popular with black and it doesn't lose by force so I don't understand how 1.f4 could be that bad."
++ Engines find fault with the weakening of the king's side that f4 / f5 causes.
See Figure 4. (a)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf