Stockfish evaluation at depth 50 on all possible initial opening moves

Chess is not even close to being solved, wdym. Chess will never be solved probably and if it is it won't be soon. 

Stockfish 15 NNUE depth 46 shows 1.d4 as the best move

1.g4 is a forced loss in about 10/10 games or 20/20 games in TCEC games with approx 1 billions nodes per seconds search. As they are high quality games, no more  need to test 1000/1000 loss to assure reliability.

1 g4? loses by force.
The other 19 first moves draw with best play by both sides and thus are equivalent.

Wait, when did this happen?

I would think that if that was even remotely true, it would have been "Breaking News" in all chess websites.

@50
See Figures 5 and 31
https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.09259

Also proof from 1 g4 to a 7-men endgame table base win:

Yeah, just what I thought.

By the way, the game that you posted is a bad joke. It is like posting a single Paul Morphy game to prove that e4 wins by force.

@52
Please try and come up with an improvement for white then. You cannot.

There may or may not be an improvement at every single move. The whole game is totally artificial, with both sides making highly suspicious moves.

Today's engines are very very very far away from correctly evaluating openings. Long variations like this are just ridiculous.

@54

"There may or may not be an improvement at every single move." ++ Point to one. You cannot.

"both sides making highly suspicious moves" ++ Point to one for white. You cannot.

"Today's engines are very very very far away from correctly evaluating openings." ++ True

"Long variations like this are just ridiculous." ++ It goes from 1 g4? to a 7-men endgame table base loss. Try to find an improvement for white. You cannot.

As I said, there are tons of places where you can improve. For the engine to correctly evaluate the entire line, it would need to spend days (weeks?) in the key position (which might be as late as move 40). Then if you find no improvement, go back one move and repeat. The entire process to disprove the Grob would take at least billions of years, and probably much much much more. This analysis that you posted is just nothing. It is so extremely shallow that literally every point might be wrong.

@56
"there are tons of places where you can improve"
++ There are only 54 white moves. Pick any of the 54 and propose an improvement.

"The entire process to disprove the Grob would take at least billions of years" ++ No, not at all.

"every point might be wrong."
++ There are 54 points. Propose an improvement over one of the 54 white moves.

Okay, for one thing: The whole Qb3-Qxb7 thing that white played goes against the spirit of the opening. White sacrifices 5 tempi (!!!) to win back the pawn: Qb3-b7-b4-a4-d1. This cannot be the right approach. You can spend those 5 moves for development and attack, just as Henri Grob intended.

On the other hand, I don't have a supercomputer in my room, and I also don't have 10 billion years to spare. Although, to be fair, that is not needed. We only have to wait a couple of decades, and we will have some computers that are quite a bit stronger than those of today. They will easily make the whole AlphaZero analysis look ridiculous.

@58
"The whole Qb3-Qxb7 thing that white played goes against the spirit of the opening"
++ Okay, so what white move do you suggest instead of 4 Qb3?

#59
Awaiting a better move than 4 Qb3 from @magipi here is proof that the move 2 h3 by IM Basman also loses by force:

This also highlights the difference between theory and practice. IM Basman has regularly played 1 g4? with good results in classical games against masters and grandmasters, e.g. in the British Championship.

I think you should look up the word "proof" in a dictionary. An illustrative game backed with some sketchy analysis is not proof.

Okay, how about this: I'll make a claim that might be even more absurd than yours. Here it comes:

Every move in those two analyses is wrong. Not only for white, but for both sides. So the question is what is best instead?

When the proposed move is the top move in chess.com's shallow analysis at depth 20, then the "second best" move is the actual best. When some other move is listed as best, that's it.

It sounds crazy, and it is certainly wrong. It also can't be proven or disproven by today's tools, we have to wait for many decades, probably centuries for chess to be solved.

@63

"Every move in those two analyses is wrong. Not only for white, but for both sides."
++ Both games end in wins for black, so the black moves stand above discussion.
If you disagree with the conclusion, then you have to find one better white move.
Just pick one move and present a better move in your opinion.

"we have to wait for many decades, probably centuries for chess to be solved"
++ Chess can be weakly solved in 5 years and we already have parts of the solution in the perfect drawn games with 0 errors from the ICCF World Championship Finals.
That however is not the discussion here.
Here we talk about the 20 possible first moves
and more specifically about the worst move 1 g4 and that it loses by force.
Instead of 4 Qb3 I also looked at 4 cxd5, which Henry Grob played. It loses just the same:

Wait, the quote that chess can be solved in 5 years was made 15 years ago, right? I thought that you dropped that particular nonsense after people pointed this out.

@66
"the quote that chess can be solved in 5 years was made 15 years ago"
++ Apparently nobody gave money for
3 (ICCF) (grand)masters and 3 cloud engines or 3000 desktops during 5 years.

Anyway back on topic.
1 g4? is the worst of the 20 possible first moves and it loses by force as per the 3 proof games I presented. If you disagree, the please produce one (1) white move better in your opinion.