Optimissed wrote:
What I object to is the insistence that 3 d4 is bad for white. But it isn't any worse than 3 c3 or 3 c4. I'm saying that 5 ...e5 is weaker than its reputation, which is why I play Qc7. Sure, I sometimes play 5 ... e5 in blitz but I'm convinced that 6 Nb3 has been wrongly evaluated. We've had enough experience of engine analysis to know that we can't trust that when evaluating an opening, especially as it can be given code to automatically bias it against 3 d4. Do you understand that?
I think 3. c3 is the best move and better than 3. d4.
3.d4 is not a "bad" move as White maintains an advantage. However White gets a better advantage with 3. c3 for fairly obvious reasons.
Often engine analysis is correct, even in the early opening.
What I object to is the insistence that 3 d4 is bad for white. But it isn't any worse than 3 c3 or 3 c4. I'm saying that 5 ...e5 is weaker than its reputation, which is why I play Qc7. Sure, I sometimes play 5 ... e5 in blitz but I'm convinced that 6 Nb3 has been wrongly evaluated. We've had enough experience of engine analysis to know that we can't trust that when evaluating an opening, especially as it can be given code to automatically bias it against 3 d4. Do you understand that?
I do agree that using engines should not be the only source of learning. I believe they can sometime mis-evaluate openings. Which is why I took precautions. I used other resources along with my analysis.
Objectively speaking the engines found the positions mostly equal with some positions given a microscopic edge to black. However, the Human databases I used filled with 2200+ players and above gave huge evaluation readings to black. So in truth it wasn't the engines hating the position it was human title chess players getting better results with black in the positions.