I mean... your rapid and blitz aren't so high either... and you're the 5th highest rated player on the whole site for daily.
Just sayin'
Hahahaha, nice find.
Fifth on the whole site, I think it's PRETTY SAFE to say he's cheating, especially when he's trying to shill his private lessons.
I guess the only way to know would be to see a match. What interests me is the questions of whether there will ever be an A > B > C > A factor at top level computer chess.
Far from it uhohspaghettio1 I'm just good with a lot of time.
These forums do sometimes get off topic...
What is the best opening move according to engines?
EDIT: Seriously, no troll posts please
they don’t know. even on move 1. and there is a thread about what happens when both sides keep playing the best moves!!!!
@1Nc31-0
Stockfish prefer 1. e4
Lco prefer 1. d4
Stockfish is a heavy tactical engine with little positional knowledge. 1. e4 usually leads to tactical games so it make sense Stockfish prefers mobility and tactics by 1. e4.
But Stockfish choice change over high depth.
According to my knowledge, SF choice are
1. e4 - shallow depth
2. d4- medium high depth
3. Nf3- very high depth( need hours of analysis)
4. c4 - extreme high depth ( months of analysis)
Lc0 is a heavy positional understanding Neural Network and she prefers positional play that usually occours by 1. d4
They two are top end two engines and they do win by their own strength.
what do you mean by very high depth ? I mean is it Depth 50-65 ?
Stockfish prefer 1. e4
Lco prefer 1. d4
Stockfish is a heavy tactical engine with little positional knowledge. 1. e4 usually leads to tactical games so it make sense Stockfish prefers mobility and tactics by 1. e4.
But Stockfish choice change over high depth.
According to my knowledge, SF choice are
1. e4 - shallow depth
2. d4- medium high depth
3. Nf3- very high depth( need hours of analysis)
4. c4 - extreme high depth ( months of analysis)
Lc0 is a heavy positional understanding Neural Network and she prefers positional play that usually occours by 1. d4
They two are top end two engines and they do win by their own strength.
what do you mean by very high depth ? I mean is it Depth 50-65 ?
With Stockfish 15 running locally on my computer, with a few minor exceptions (that is the preferred move changing for just one specific depth), I got 1. d4 up to depth 42, 1. e4 from depth 43-57, 1. d4 from 58-62, then it starts to switch between 1. e4, 1. d4, and 1. Nf3. I only tested up to depth 65 though. If you took months you probably test up to depth 100 but depth 65 already took me 6 hours, and it gets continues to progress significantly slower the higher depth you get to.
I never got 1. c4 as a recommended move. Perhaps you get it if you go much higher but I don't have the patience for that. I will say though that at depth 40 1. c4 is considered the fourth best move, being close to quite close to 1. g3 (the 5th best) but still +0.15 off of the best move.
Also, the reason why I may have different results than the previous commenter is potentially because they are using an older stockfish version.
i have heard the french is proven to be worse by engines and that higher level players avoid it all together. it is fun to play nevertheless for us lower levels
The top four first moves (1.e4, 1.d4, 1.c4, and 1.nf3) are all supposedly a draw with best play.
So it's somewhat pointless to wonder about which one is "best" - as they all theoretically lead to the same destination ...
The top four first moves (1.e4, 1.d4, 1.c4, and 1.nf3) are all supposedly a draw with best play.
So it's somewhat pointless to wonder about which one is "best" - as they all theoretically lead to the same destination ...
It's even worse than that. The only move that outright loses is the Grob (1. g4). Everything else has lead to draws in NN correspondence games.
At Engine Level French is absoult garbage
Strong bots have no opinion but an opening encyclopedia which is not really an opinion but what the theory of openings says about of human knowledge based on statistics human vs human.
Afterwards if we make strong bots vs strong bots in rapid time (ex. 10, 15, 20m or 10m+5s per move) with no book, the bots "learn to play" compared to their opponents and it should be on the long term 1) d4
d4, c4, e4, and Nf3 are all best. Everything else is markedly worse, albeit playable, except the Grob, which actually loses by force.
The top four first moves (1.e4, 1.d4, 1.c4, and 1.nf3) are all supposedly a draw with best play.
So it's somewhat pointless to wonder about which one is "best" - as they all theoretically lead to the same destination ...
It's even worse than that. The only move that outright loses is the Grob (1. g4). Everything else has lead to draws in NN correspondence games.
yep, Grob proponents have been on suicide watch ever since. Worse than even f3 - that's just cruel.
Still, just because engines of today say that maybe engines in 100 years will say Nf3 is actually the worst. Until the game gets solved (ie. never) it's all conjecture and trying to get a position that is understood by the player and causes problems for the opponent. I don't believe the grob is actually losing by force, common sense says that it couldn't be so early in the game.
Either way, engine are constently getting stronger. In 10 years, these current engines are probably gonna be quite weak. I guess it depends on how close we are to solving chess.