Answers.Body: <p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_annotation_symbols" rel="noreferrer">Wikipedia</a> says the following:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>Exclamation points (&quot;!&quot;) indicate good moves—<strong>especially ones which are surprising or involve particular skill</strong>. Hence annotators are usually somewhat conservative with the use of this symbol.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>(emphasis mine). 2. c4 is the most played move after 1. d4 d5, therefore it doesn't receive an exclamation mark.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-18T16:57:07.647Z
Answers.Text: Exactly. Book moves are the opposite of surprising.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Mast
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-18T17:25:58.000Z
Answers.Text: It's just the opposite, because it's so good that it became a "book move" and everyone takes it for granted.
Answers.UserDisplayName: A. N. Other
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-18T18:18:26.750Z
Answers.Text: Since when is Wikipedia dictating standards in chess? Anyway, can't opening moves be surprising or involve skill?
Answers.UserDisplayName: A. N. Other
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-18T22:23:26.890Z
Answers.Text: Indeed, and the first time it was played, 2. c4 probably warranted a !.  It no longer does.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Adam Barnes
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-20T10:19:17.650Z
Answers.Text: @ANOther Wikipedia is not dictating standards. It is *recording* standards that are already in use.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Patrick Stevens
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-21T13:47:05.010Z
Answers.Text: So - if it's recording - what is the source for that statement?
Answers.UserDisplayName: A. N. Other
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-17T08:49:39.820Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-09-17T08:49:39.820Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Glorfindel
Answers.Body: <p>To try to give a concrete example consider Sax-Seirawan, Brussels 1988</p>
  <pre><code>[Event &quot;World Cup&quot;]
  [Site &quot;Brussels&quot;]
  [Date &quot;1988.??.??&quot;]
  [Round &quot;?&quot;]
  [White &quot;Sax, Gyula&quot;]
  [Black &quot;Seirawan, Yasser&quot;]
  [Result &quot;1/2-1/2&quot;]
  [WhiteElo &quot;2610&quot;]
  [BlackElo &quot;2595&quot;]
  [ECO &quot;B09&quot;]
  [FEN &quot;&quot;]
  
  1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. f4 Bg7 5. Nf3 c5 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7. e5 Ng4 8. e6  fxe6! 9. Ng5 Bxb5 10. Nxe6 Bxd4!! 11. Nxd8 Bf2+ 12. Kd2 Be3+ 1/2-1/2
  </code></pre>
  <p>(Annotation is mine to make the point)</p>
  <p>In 1988 before this game <code>8 ... fxe6</code> was considered a blunder and the whole <code>5 ... c5</code> line was considered somewhat dubious. However Seirawan's find of <code>10 ... Bxd4!!</code> effectively gave birth to a major new line in the Pirc, and Chess Informant voted this the most theoretically important game for the first half of 1988. Later white found ways to avoid the draw, and line is considered fairly equal nowadays, but even back then such strong novelties as early as move 10 were rare, and now, especially with engines coming into use, have all but disappeared.</p>
  <p>So back in 1988 Bxd4 was a very surprising, strong move in a position where Black previously had been thought all but dead. Thus back in 1988 it deserved at least one if not more exclams. However nowadays it is routine - as a ~1850 patzer I have had this very game a number of times. It has lost its surprise value, and so no longer deserves the annotation.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-18T09:38:01.647Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-09-18T09:38:01.647Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Ian Bush
Answers.Body: <p>Exclamation (!) is a highlight in analysis. Either it indicates <em>strong</em> move, or it is also possible to indicate <em>unexpected</em> move. Something to which opponent is totally <em>unprepared</em>. Something which will be followed by inaccuracy (?). This could be different depending on what exact game it is. What will follow after <em>provoking</em> move? Exclamated move could be not optimal at all, making a weakness in your defense. Nonetheless, even making you weaker, it could lure your opponent into blundering entire game.</p>
  <p>If that is the game from XIX century where opponents could be not prepared and preferred to accept gambits, then it was &quot;!&quot; move.</p>
  <p>Today we have openings up to 12 moves, and the theory behind every variant shows equality, so even if it is Queen Gambit Accepted variant - opponents are already expecting you playing it, you would not catch any initiative.</p>
  <p>It all depends what century is the game from.</p>
  <p>Today everybody knows QGA and most likely will choose 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 and there will be no surprise in that.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-17T16:32:48.827Z
Answers.Text: You say that "everybody knows QGA", and this might be true, but let's assume that we are two complete beginners, and we haven't read any chess book, and this is our first game ever. Would you find and play 2.c4 as White, after 1.d4 d5?
Answers.UserDisplayName: A. N. Other
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-17T17:36:29.787Z
Answers.Text: @A.N.Other - if you *were* annotating a game between complete novices in which `2. c4` was played, and they showed (by explanation or next moves) that it was a reasoned decision and not a random choice, you would be very justified in labelling it `!`. Such games are very rarely annotated -- the vast majority of annotated games are between experienced players who are playing well-known openings -- so `!`s in openings are equally rare.
Answers.UserDisplayName: FLHerne
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-17T13:13:40.410Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-09-17T14:19:43.053Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-09-17T14:19:43.053Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: sanaris
Answers.Body: <p>Not many moves in the opening deserve exclams. A classic example was Morphy-Allies, Paris 1858: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Bg4 4. dxe5! and Black will lose a pawn, or lose bishop for knight while enabling White to gain time by developing with the recapture.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-17T08:34:30.633Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-09-17T08:34:30.633Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: friscodelrosario
Answers.Body: <p>As noted by the existing answers, opening moves are usually standard and as such expected to at least some degree.</p>
  <p>Arguably, Fischer’s 1. c4 in the sixth game of the <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_1972" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1972 World Championship match</a> could deserve an exclamation mark, since it was a remarkably good strategical move, albeit somewhat “meta-strategic”.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-18T18:25:57.130Z
Answers.Text: 1,e4 is certainly a stronger move than 1.a4 according to modern opening theory (But maybe in two hundred years from now 1.a4 will be considered stronger?). Anyway, aren't 1.e4 or 1.d4 clearly stronger than 1.a4 or 1.a3, for example?
Answers.UserDisplayName: A. N. Other
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-18T18:52:44.533Z
Answers.Text: @A.N.Other I don’t see how this applies to my answer concretely. I just wanted to list an example of where an opening move, the first one at that, should arguably be given an exclamation mark. If you have a viable opening move, say 1. a4 and it proves to be “meta-strategically” sound (for the lack of a better expression) it might as well deserve an exclamation mark in my opinion.
Answers.UserDisplayName: gstukelj
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-18T19:21:27.937Z
Answers.Text: Well, Fischer's 1.c4 deserves an exclamation mark because he won, this we know well... Had he lost, it would have been labeled as a bad decision. But I am talking about the objective value of opening moves. According to accepted modern opening strategy, the center is most important in the opening, so any move that directly or else fights for the center is a strong move, hence it deserves, at least virtually, an exclamation mark, this not being the case for 1.a4 and similar. I hope that my point is clearer now.
Answers.UserDisplayName: A. N. Other
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-19T05:22:50.430Z
Answers.Text: i thought i read somewhere that Fischer himself might have (perhaps tongue in cheek) annotated a game as 1. e4!
Answers.UserDisplayName: Michael
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-18T07:17:29.027Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-09-18T07:17:29.027Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: gstukelj
Answers.Body: <p>The !, ?, !?, and other such symbols are meant to highlight moves that are unusual in some way: Unusually good, unusually bad, unusually dubious depending on the opponent's response, etc.</p>
  <p>If they were used on opening moves, then they'd appear with practically every single game of chess.</p>
  <p>At that point they'd become just noise and people would ignore them.  To have any impact, they have to be used rarely.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-18T06:25:44.433Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-09-18T06:25:44.433Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Kyralessa
Answers.Body: <p>Lots of good answers here, but I'll add one perspective that's kind of been missed.</p>
  <p>Every chess game starts out in a position that <em>has been played before by others</em>. The game continues in this state until, at some point, in some games, play evolves into a position <strong>that has never been played before</strong>. It is certain that you will not find an <code>!</code> on moves that simply replicate a game that has already been played before because there is nothing surprising about copying a line from another player into a position that both players know, understand, and have seen before.</p>
  <p>Only once a game moves into a novel position are the players truly challenged to demonstrate their skill and you will typically not see <code>!</code> used until it produces such a novel position, and only rarely even then.</p>
  <p>When Einstein published the theory of relativity, he was hailed as a genius.  <code>!</code></p>
  <p>When an undergraduate physics student turns in the same equations as homework a hundred years later, they simply get to come back the next day instead of being sent home with an <strong>F</strong>.</p>
  <p><code>!</code> is relative.  If you're the first person to make that move, sure - you deserve it.  If, 20 years later, that move is standard play into a line 3 moves deeper yet and you're just dancing through an opening with your opponent...well, sorry, no <code>!</code> for you.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-20T18:20:04.353Z
Answers.Text: I understand, but then, for example, smothered mate with Queen and Knight is always given at least an exclamation mark, and we have seen it thousand of times. Following your reasoning, it should not be given the !, being well know by now.
Answers.UserDisplayName: A. N. Other
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-20T18:41:43.227Z
Answers.Text: And that would be the same for all well-known combinations, e.g. Bxh7+ followed by Ng5... And not just for combinations, but also for well-known well-known positional play, etc.
Answers.UserDisplayName: A. N. Other
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-20T18:45:04.727Z
Answers.Text: @A.N.Other Yes, but smothered mate with queen and knight can evolve out of countless positions.  I don't think the same endgame position would ever have been played more than once (and `!` awarded both times).  I think if you can conjure a smothered mate with a queen and knight out of a position where nobody else has yet done it (ie: a novel game) that's certainly worth a `!`, and I would guess that almost all cases of high level play where this has happened it's been a unique game.  Same with combinations - it's not the move itself, it's the position that you play it in that counts.
Answers.UserDisplayName: J...
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-20T10:01:43.747Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-09-20T10:59:06.043Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-09-20T10:59:06.043Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: J...
Answers.Body: <p>Why not</p>
  <ol>
  <li>d4?!</li>
  </ol>
  <p>or even</p>
  <ol start="0">
  <li>?</li>
  </ol>
  <p>(Arguably, Go is a deeper game and in any event, don't you have something better to do with your time than play games?)</p>
  <p>Symbols like ? and ! are not meant to communicate <em>opinions</em>, which is what they would be if you sprinkled them on standard opening moves.</p>
  <p>To forestall an objection, an informed opinion is still an opinion.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-17T19:55:54.007Z
Answers.Text: So opening moves are just a question of opinion? Is that your point? Can't they be objectively good, interesting, dubious, or bad, as the other moves? Then when is opinion ending, and objective evaluation beginning? At move 8, 9 or maybe at move 15?
Answers.UserDisplayName: A. N. Other
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-17T21:13:04.917Z
Answers.Text: @A.N.Other The boundary between opinion and something more objective is fuzzy. Giving the Ruy Lopez an explanation mark (presumably at the expense of the 3-knights game and the Giuco Piano) would mostly function as a way for the commentator to express their opening preferences. I would find that annoying rather than informative. The commentator can express their (educated) opinions in the surrounding prose, but it shouldn't clutter the moves. On the other hand, I wouldn't object to seeing something like ?! or even ? in e.g. the Latvian Gambit, which is why I specified *standard* opening moves.
Answers.UserDisplayName: John Coleman
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-17T21:46:22.157Z
Answers.Text: Don't you think that exclamation or question marks in the middlegame, too, could be a matter of opinion and personal style? I can give an exclamation mark to a move that simplifies into a good endgame for me, while someone else, in the same position, could give an exclamation mark to a sacrifice that leads to big complications, trying to capitalize on his tactical ability, to win the game... just an example of course
Answers.UserDisplayName: A. N. Other
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-18T17:21:26.063Z
Answers.Text: By the way, Nimzowitsch used to give a lot of exclamation marks to early opening moves, i.e. in "My System", as did Hans Berliner in "The System". Were they totally wrong in this approach? It seems to me that both of them knew a lot about chess, with the former being universally considered one of the greatest chess thinkers in history.
Answers.UserDisplayName: A. N. Other
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-17T17:44:01.250Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-09-17T17:44:01.250Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: John Coleman
Answers.Body: <p>I've seen the first move annotated with (!) when the move was preparation for a specific game that was a surprise and it worked out.  1. e4!</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-10-17T03:36:56.623Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-10-17T03:36:56.623Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Michael West
Body: <p>As the title above, why aren't early opening moves generally given exclamation marks? I see question marks for obvious opening mistakes from time to time, e.g. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6? or 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Bg4?! But I almost never see exclamation marks for early strong opening moves. For example, after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 should be given an exclamation mark, being obviously a strong move, already challenging Black's center at move 2, or, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5! the Ruy Lopez being considered the best way to challenge Black's center already at move 3, and so on...</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-09-18T14:47:37.397Z
Comments.Text: How about this: 1. e4! e5! 2. Nf3! Nc6! 3. Bb5! a6! 4. Ba4! Nf6! 5. O-O! Be7! 6. Re1! b5! 7. Bb3! d6! 8. c3! O-O! 9. h3! Na5! 10. Bc2! c5! 11. d4! Qc7! 12. Nbd2! cxd4! 13. cxd4! Nc6! 14. Nb3! a5! 15. Be3! a4! 16. Nbd2! Bd7! 17. Rc1! Qb7!
Comments.UserDisplayName: Zuriel
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-09-18T17:13:21.197Z
Comments.Text: So what? If all of these opening moves are actually very strong moves, I don't see why exclamation marks should be omitted. By the way, in beginners books most of these moves actually do get exclamation marks, with explanations regarding why these are strong. On another note, is this - in your view - a perfect sequence of opening moves?
Comments.UserDisplayName: A. N. Other
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-09-18T17:18:44.050Z
Comments.Text: PS Did you notice how many exclamation marks were given to early opening moves by Nimzowitsch, in "My System"?
Comments.UserDisplayName: A. N. Other
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-10-17T07:05:07.590Z
Comments.Text: @A.N.Other if half the moves in a game are gonna get the "!", then why not get rid of it altogether?
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Tags: <opening><annotation>
Title: Why aren't early opening moves generally given exclamation marks?
ThreadText: # Why aren't early opening moves generally given exclamation marks?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2020-09-17)
  
  As the title above, why aren't early opening moves generally given exclamation marks? I see question marks for obvious opening mistakes from time to time, e.g. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6? or 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Bg4?! But I almost never see exclamation marks for early strong opening moves. For example, after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 should be given an exclamation mark, being obviously a strong move, already challenging Black's center at move 2, or, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5! the Ruy Lopez being considered the best way to challenge Black's center already at move 3, and so on...
  
  **Tags:** opening, annotation
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: How about this: 1. e4! e5! 2. Nf3! Nc6! 3. Bb5! a6! 4. Ba4! Nf6! 5. O-O! Be7! 6. Re1! b5! 7. Bb3! d6! 8. c3! O-O! 9. h3! Na5! 10. Bc2! c5! 11. d4! Qc7! 12. Nbd2! cxd4! 13. cxd4! Nc6! 14. Nb3! a5! 15. Be3! a4! 16. Nbd2! Bd7! 17. Rc1! Qb7!  
  > **username_0**: So what? If all of these opening moves are actually very strong moves, I don't see why exclamation marks should be omitted. By the way, in beginners books most of these moves actually do get exclamation marks, with explanations regarding why these are strong. On another note, is this - in your view - a perfect sequence of opening moves?  
  > **username_0**: PS Did you notice how many exclamation marks were given to early opening moves by Nimzowitsch, in "My System"?  
  > **username_2**: @A.N.Other if half the moves in a game are gonna get the "!", then why not get rid of it altogether?  
  
  ---
  
  ## 9 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2020-09-17. Score: 16
  
  [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_annotation_symbols) says the following:
  
  > Exclamation points ("!") indicate good moves—**especially ones which are surprising or involve particular skill**. Hence annotators are usually somewhat conservative with the use of this symbol.
  
  (emphasis mine). 2. c4 is the most played move after 1. d4 d5, therefore it doesn't receive an exclamation mark.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_4**: Exactly. Book moves are the opposite of surprising.  
  > **username_0**: It's just the opposite, because it's so good that it became a "book move" and everyone takes it for granted.  
  > **username_0**: Since when is Wikipedia dictating standards in chess? Anyway, can't opening moves be surprising or involve skill?  
  > **username_5**: Indeed, and the first time it was played, 2. c4 probably warranted a !.  It no longer does.  
  > **username_6**: @ANOther Wikipedia is not dictating standards. It is *recording* standards that are already in use.  
  > **username_0**: So - if it's recording - what is the source for that statement?  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2020-09-18. Score: 9
  
  To try to give a concrete example consider Sax-Seirawan, Brussels 1988
  [Event "World Cup"]
  [Site "Brussels"]
  [Date "1988.??.??"]
  [Round "?"]
  [White "Sax, Gyula"]
  [Black "Seirawan, Yasser"]
  [Result "1/2-1/2"]
  [WhiteElo "2610"]
  [BlackElo "2595"]
  [ECO "B09"]
  [FEN ""]
  
  1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. f4 Bg7 5. Nf3 c5 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7. e5 Ng4 8. e6  fxe6! 9. Ng5 Bxb5 10. Nxe6 Bxd4!! 11. Nxd8 Bf2+ 12. Kd2 Be3+ 1/2-1/2
  
  (Annotation is mine to make the point)
  In 1988 before this game 8 ... fxe6 was considered a blunder and the whole 5 ... c5 line was considered somewhat dubious. However Seirawan's find of 10 ... Bxd4!! effectively gave birth to a major new line in the Pirc, and Chess Informant voted this the most theoretically important game for the first half of 1988. Later white found ways to avoid the draw, and line is considered fairly equal nowadays, but even back then such strong novelties as early as move 10 were rare, and now, especially with engines coming into use, have all but disappeared.
  So back in 1988 Bxd4 was a very surprising, strong move in a position where Black previously had been thought all but dead. Thus back in 1988 it deserved at least one if not more exclams. However nowadays it is routine - as a ~1850 patzer I have had this very game a number of times. It has lost its surprise value, and so no longer deserves the annotation.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_8 on 2020-09-17. Score: 4
  
  Exclamation (!) is a highlight in analysis. Either it indicates *strong* move, or it is also possible to indicate *unexpected* move. Something to which opponent is totally *unprepared*. Something which will be followed by inaccuracy (?). This could be different depending on what exact game it is. What will follow after *provoking* move? Exclamated move could be not optimal at all, making a weakness in your defense. Nonetheless, even making you weaker, it could lure your opponent into blundering entire game.
  
  If that is the game from XIX century where opponents could be not prepared and preferred to accept gambits, then it was "!" move.
  
  Today we have openings up to 12 moves, and the theory behind every variant shows equality, so even if it is Queen Gambit Accepted variant - opponents are already expecting you playing it, you would not catch any initiative.
  
  It all depends what century is the game from.
  
  Today everybody knows QGA and most likely will choose 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 and there will be no surprise in that.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: You say that "everybody knows QGA", and this might be true, but let's assume that we are two complete beginners, and we haven't read any chess book, and this is our first game ever. Would you find and play 2.c4 as White, after 1.d4 d5?  
  > **username_9**: @A.N.Other - if you *were* annotating a game between complete novices in which `2. c4` was played, and they showed (by explanation or next moves) that it was a reasoned decision and not a random choice, you would be very justified in labelling it `!`. Such games are very rarely annotated -- the vast majority of annotated games are between experienced players who are playing well-known openings -- so `!`s in openings are equally rare.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_10 on 2020-09-17. Score: 3
  
  Not many moves in the opening deserve exclams. A classic example was Morphy-Allies, Paris 1858: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Bg4 4. dxe5! and Black will lose a pawn, or lose bishop for knight while enabling White to gain time by developing with the recapture.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_11 on 2020-09-18. Score: 3
  
  As noted by the existing answers, opening moves are usually standard and as such expected to at least some degree.
  
  Arguably, Fischer’s 1. c4 in the sixth game of the [1972 World Championship match](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_1972) could deserve an exclamation mark, since it was a remarkably good strategical move, albeit somewhat “meta-strategic”.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: 1,e4 is certainly a stronger move than 1.a4 according to modern opening theory (But maybe in two hundred years from now 1.a4 will be considered stronger?). Anyway, aren't 1.e4 or 1.d4 clearly stronger than 1.a4 or 1.a3, for example?  
  > **username_11**: @A.N.Other I don’t see how this applies to my answer concretely. I just wanted to list an example of where an opening move, the first one at that, should arguably be given an exclamation mark. If you have a viable opening move, say 1. a4 and it proves to be “meta-strategically” sound (for the lack of a better expression) it might as well deserve an exclamation mark in my opinion.  
  > **username_0**: Well, Fischer's 1.c4 deserves an exclamation mark because he won, this we know well... Had he lost, it would have been labeled as a bad decision. But I am talking about the objective value of opening moves. According to accepted modern opening strategy, the center is most important in the opening, so any move that directly or else fights for the center is a strong move, hence it deserves, at least virtually, an exclamation mark, this not being the case for 1.a4 and similar. I hope that my point is clearer now.  
  > **username_12**: i thought i read somewhere that Fischer himself might have (perhaps tongue in cheek) annotated a game as 1. e4!  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_13 on 2020-09-18. Score: 2
  
  The !, ?, !?, and other such symbols are meant to highlight moves that are unusual in some way: Unusually good, unusually bad, unusually dubious depending on the opponent's response, etc.
  
  If they were used on opening moves, then they'd appear with practically every single game of chess.
  
  At that point they'd become just noise and people would ignore them. To have any impact, they have to be used rarely.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_14 on 2020-09-20. Score: 2
  
  Lots of good answers here, but I'll add one perspective that's kind of been missed.
  
  Every chess game starts out in a position that *has been played before by others*. The game continues in this state until, at some point, in some games, play evolves into a position **that has never been played before**. It is certain that you will not find an `!` on moves that simply replicate a game that has already been played before because there is nothing surprising about copying a line from another player into a position that both players know, understand, and have seen before.
  
  Only once a game moves into a novel position are the players truly challenged to demonstrate their skill and you will typically not see `!` used until it produces such a novel position, and only rarely even then.
  
  When Einstein published the theory of relativity, he was hailed as a genius. `!`
  
  When an undergraduate physics student turns in the same equations as homework a hundred years later, they simply get to come back the next day instead of being sent home with an **F**.
  
  `!` is relative. If you're the first person to make that move, sure - you deserve it. If, 20 years later, that move is standard play into a line 3 moves deeper yet and you're just dancing through an opening with your opponent...well, sorry, no `!` for you.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: I understand, but then, for example, smothered mate with Queen and Knight is always given at least an exclamation mark, and we have seen it thousand of times. Following your reasoning, it should not be given the !, being well know by now.  
  > **username_0**: And that would be the same for all well-known combinations, e.g. Bxh7+ followed by Ng5... And not just for combinations, but also for well-known well-known positional play, etc.  
  > **username_14**: @A.N.Other Yes, but smothered mate with queen and knight can evolve out of countless positions.  I don't think the same endgame position would ever have been played more than once (and `!` awarded both times).  I think if you can conjure a smothered mate with a queen and knight out of a position where nobody else has yet done it (ie: a novel game) that's certainly worth a `!`, and I would guess that almost all cases of high level play where this has happened it's been a unique game.  Same with combinations - it's not the move itself, it's the position that you play it in that counts.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_15 on 2020-09-17. Score: 1
  
  Why not
  
  1. d4?!
  
  or even
  
  0. ?
  
  (Arguably, Go is a deeper game and in any event, don't you have something better to do with your time than play games?)
  
  Symbols like ? and ! are not meant to communicate *opinions*, which is what they would be if you sprinkled them on standard opening moves.
  
  To forestall an objection, an informed opinion is still an opinion.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: So opening moves are just a question of opinion? Is that your point? Can't they be objectively good, interesting, dubious, or bad, as the other moves? Then when is opinion ending, and objective evaluation beginning? At move 8, 9 or maybe at move 15?  
  > **username_15**: @A.N.Other The boundary between opinion and something more objective is fuzzy. Giving the Ruy Lopez an explanation mark (presumably at the expense of the 3-knights game and the Giuco Piano) would mostly function as a way for the commentator to express their opening preferences. I would find that annoying rather than informative. The commentator can express their (educated) opinions in the surrounding prose, but it shouldn't clutter the moves. On the other hand, I wouldn't object to seeing something like ?! or even ? in e.g. the Latvian Gambit, which is why I specified *standard* opening moves.  
  > **username_0**: Don't you think that exclamation or question marks in the middlegame, too, could be a matter of opinion and personal style? I can give an exclamation mark to a move that simplifies into a good endgame for me, while someone else, in the same position, could give an exclamation mark to a sacrifice that leads to big complications, trying to capitalize on his tactical ability, to win the game... just an example of course  
  > **username_0**: By the way, Nimzowitsch used to give a lot of exclamation marks to early opening moves, i.e. in "My System", as did Hans Berliner in "The System". Were they totally wrong in this approach? It seems to me that both of them knew a lot about chess, with the former being universally considered one of the greatest chess thinkers in history.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_16 on 2020-10-17. Score: 0
  
  I've seen the first move annotated with (!) when the move was preparation for a specific game that was a surprise and it worked out. 1. e4!
  
  
  ---
  
  