what about history on 1.e4-b5? According to chessgames.com opening data base, which includes games only if either participant is master level or Fide 2300 Elo, there has only been 1 instance of 1.b5 and black lost that game. if you observe that game, white had initiative, tempo and good tactic.
According to my chess opening explorer application, in 726 games 1.e4 has been answered with 1.b5. 66% of that 726 was won by white.
I think there can be no dispute to omit this possibility. but what if we omit it? after solving chess [in a weak sense], people will start saying "no, 1.e4 is not solved yet. 1.b5 has not been tested, 1.a5 has not been tested" and e.t.c
I hope this one is real Donald Trump. @OP, if you really are Donald Trump and really did what you wrote here, I have some ideas, opinions on solving chess. I am not a programmer or chess master in anyway. I just want to say it:
what if, instead of engines calculating every moce; you reduce the number of possibilities? There are 20 possibilities for 1st move of white and 20 possible responses from balck. BuT , at least 10 of those 20 possible first moves of white are nonsense or garbage, such as 1.Na3 or 1.g4 or 1.Nh3
1.b3, 1g.g3 can also be ignored due to the chess opening theory we have. so, engines should focus on : 1.d4 , 1.e4, 1.c4, 1.Nf3 and may be 1.f4 as well so, instead of 20 possible 1st moves for white, engines will start with 5 of them. This 5 openings should be divided into 5 into 2000 computers each. Now, 2000 computers work on e4, other 2000 work on 1.d4 and so on. After that, 2000 of 1.e4 also shall pick 4 or 5 sound responses from black. such as:
1.e4 - 1.c5/e5/d5/Nf6 Garbage moves like 1. Nh6 or 1.g5 should be ignored.
Now:
instead of 20 possible 1st moves for each side, engine will need to calculate only 5 for each side. That said, it means millions of possibilities are eliminated. Many possibilities can be eliminated such as:
1.e4-e5 2.Nf3-f6 Immedaitely after 2.f6 of black, this variation must be ignored. Engines shall be programmed to do so or must be administered by a programmer to do so.
Now, 2000 computers are working on 1.e4. We have selected 4 replies from black side: they are: 1.c5/d5/e5/Nf6 Now we will divide these 2000 computers into 4 groups: 400 comps will work 1.c5 other 400 will work on e5 and e.t.c
or even more, it would be better if the entire group, 10K comps of you, work on 1 one of those moves first. After dealing with 1.e4 or any other move, they should go on with other possibilities.
Now, someone may say: chess is not a solved game, thus we can not eliminate thise "supposed garbage moves" becausr they may be the move that leads to win/draw but something must be considered first:
many moves can be omitted based on theory we have, our predictions, chess engines and opening experts. for ex: according to Droidfish 7, playing 1.b5 as a response to 1.e4 means +1.4 for white after the calculation up until 20 plies.
what about the perspective of chess knowledge on 1.e4-1b5? as far as I know, black loses a pawn without any opportunity to recover, retake the pawn. It does even not give opportunity to immediate attack or something like center control like Queens gambit does. even if the game goes one 1.e4-b5 2.Bxb5- Bb7 attacking e4 pawn and developing his light coloured bishop, it still does not gain anything because to defend e4 white will deploy Queen's Kmight into c3 which is one of the moves that need to be played as 3rd or fourth move or no later than that. what if it goes:
1.e4-b5
2.Bxb4-Bb7
3. Nc3-Nf6
someone can say black is deploying as well as attacking e4 pawn but it does not prevent white from doing anything. as a 4th move white will simply play d3. By doing so, white opens the way for Dark coloured bishop and his white bishop is already deployed so d3 does not block it. After all, we can conclude that 1.b5 as a response to 1.e4 is simply garbage and should be ignored.
Disclaimer: I am not chess expert or programmer, all of the things I wrote here may be wrong, all are my observations which may be wrong and can be challenged. you will be wellcome to challenge my ideas.
@Sir Donald, what do you say?