Have any openings been solved by computer?

From what I gather, the bust to the King's Gambit was an April Fool's joke.

http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4008047

I know that a +5.5 threshold isn't a fool-proof "solve" but it's good enough for me.

Has any opening ever been solved before, even for a deeper starting position, such as this position:

Or does anyone know of a study estimating how much computing power it'd take?

1.f4 e5 2.g4 has been shown to be a forced win for black

I believe 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5? 4.Qg4! has been "solved" by Mieses.

I think not. It is impossible to solve an opening. Often openings change as fashions change. If an opening gets proven that it is not very strong then people will stop playing it. Most openings also involve positional considerations with tactics less important. Computers aren't so good at evaluating positional subtleties.

For instance, most engines don't like the Sicilian Defence but we know through trial and error it is the strongest for humans against e4.

1.f3 d4 2.g4 has been solved. Try evaluating this on a chess engine.

We didn't need computers to solve that.

Nobody's asking if you need computers to know it's bad. We're asking if it has been done.

parham accepted

4...Qf6? is losing but I believe 4...Nd4! is interesting, and was recommended in "Dangerous Weapons : 1.e4 e5"

Disclaimer: I am posting this without aboard..

Doesnt this just drop the g7 pawn?

Keep in mind that tablebases of solved positions start from the ending and work backwards toward the opening.  I think they've solved all positions with 7 or fewer pieces.  It'll be a few hundred years before the solutions reach into the opening (not trying to re-open debate about chess being solvable...)