Answers.Body: <p>Houdini 1.5 on my old machine (1.8 G 2 cpu) slows down a lot around 20 ply (10 moves).</p>
  
  <p>At 20 ply, it seems to slightly favor a four knights queen pawn game, starting with d4 or Nf3 over the Four Knights (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6)</p>
  
  <p>it switches at 22 ply to the Ruy Lopez Berlin (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Be7).</p>
  
  <p>at ply 23, it switches back to d-pawn four knights, but starting with 1.Nf3</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-03-16T15:13:30.487Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-03-16T15:13:30.487Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: newshutz
Answers.Body: <p><strong>None</strong> - yet.</p>
  
  <p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute-force_search" rel="nofollow">Brute Force</a> is a pretty well defined problem solving technique that consists of checking each and every candidate for whether it is a solution. Since we are starting at move 1, a <strong>candidate</strong> has to be defined as <strong>a complete game of chess</strong> and the only possible <strong>objective criterion</strong> for its evaluation is whether it <strong>forces a win for white</strong> or not. No engine has analyzed a forced win for white from move 1 so far, so <strong>no actual brute-force engine has reached a conclusion yet</strong>.</p>
  
  <p>As soon as you introduce a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic" rel="nofollow"><strong>heuristic</strong></a> (or multiple ones like positional advantage, material advantage, space advantage...) for evaluating <strong>partial solutions</strong> (game positions that are not a checkmate yet) and their distance to a complete solution, <strong>like all chess engines do</strong>, it stops being a brute-force engine. Those evaluation techniques are the reason why chess engines are able to choose moves <strong>at all</strong> until the whole space of possible chess games is solved and/or a force win for white is found (which I think is highly unlikely).</p>
  
  <p>Thus, my answer is that there are no brute-force engines in use today - if there were one it would still be thinking. Yes, brute-force might be used to describe the basic technique that modern heuristics developed from, but the evaluation criteria are actually a lot more important for an engine's capabilities. To put it bluntly, calling todays chess engines 'brute-force' is akin to calling a house a 'hole-thing', just because you need to dig a hole for the foundation. The rest is much more important and interesting.</p>
  
  <p>I hope you, dear reader, will not take this as nit-picking on words, but as an addendum to the <strong>actual answers</strong> already given by other people. They answer the spirit of the question, this one... just the semantics - there was nothing else left to answer. :)</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-09T18:41:02.757Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-05-09T18:41:02.757Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: sheltem
Answers.Body: <p><a href="http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman131.pdf" rel="nofollow">A very interesting article regarding this</a>.</p>
  
  <p>It gives an overview of what Houdini suggests for the first few moves for White (and also Black).</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-06T10:40:26.193Z
Answers.Text: Please say a few words about why you find it interesting, and not just give the link.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Dag Oskar Madsen
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-06T09:31:47.683Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-05-06T10:41:53.977Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2014-05-06T10:41:53.977Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: zscoder
Answers.Body: <p>A chess engine works by trying to "rate" positions, and evaluate how strong they are. It could find a checkmate in 4 moves (that one where white checkmates by getting queen to f7 (IIRC)) but it'd be stupid to consider this "AHA! My evaluation is that I have won!" As such it is very subjective as it depends hugely on what it thinks the opponents best move is.</p>
  
  <p>It is for this reason it is not (read: I really really doubt, with my mathsy-background) known if chess is a fair game, that is will "perfect" playing by both sides lead to a draw, or white or black to win, because that "perfect" part is so subjective.</p>
  
  <p>With 0s and Xs, it is a fair game because it is easy to show that "perfect" playing leads to a draw.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-03-18T04:04:08.253Z
Answers.Text: **It is for this reason it is not that it is know if chess is a fair game** Pardon?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Anon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-03-26T23:31:59.480Z
Answers.Text: @Akiva sorry, yeah "has anyone ever been so far as to decide what not to look like" moment, I'll fix it! - Fixed!
Answers.UserDisplayName: Alec Teal
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-03-16T15:46:25.470Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-03-26T23:32:30.897Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2014-03-26T23:32:30.897Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Alec Teal
Answers.Body: <p>Figured I'd post the famous Deep Blue vs Kasparov games. </p>
  
  <pre><code>Game #  White       Black       Result  Opening     Comment
  1       Deep Blue   Kasparov    1–0     e4 c5
  2       Kasparov    Deep Blue   1–0     Nf3 d5
  3       Deep Blue   Kasparov    ½–½     e4 c5       Draw by mutual agreement
  4       Kasparov    Deep Blue   ½–½     Nf3 d5      Draw by mutual agreement
  5       Deep Blue   Kasparov    0–1     e4 e5       Kasparov offered a draw after the 23rd move.
  6       Kasparov    Deep Blue   1–0     Nf3 d5
  Result: Kasparov–Deep Blue: 4–2
  
  
  Game #  White       Black       Result  Opening     Comment
  1       Kasparov    Deep Blue   1–0     Nf3 d5
  2       Deep Blue   Kasparov    1–0     e4 e5
  3       Kasparov    Deep Blue   ½–½     d3 e5       Draw by mutual agreement
  4       Deep Blue   Kasparov    ½–½     e4 c6       Draw by mutual agreement
  5       Kasparov    Deep Blue   ½–½     Nf3 d5      Draw by mutual agreement
  6       Deep Blue   Kasparov    1–0     e4 c6
  Result: Deep Blue–Kasparov: 3½–2½
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>Deep Blue</p>
  
  <p>e4 c5 = 1-0-1</p>
  
  <p>e4 c6 = 1-0-1</p>
  
  <p>e4 e5 = 1-1-0</p>
  
  <p>Kasparov</p>
  
  <p>Nf3 d5 = 3-2-0</p>
  
  <p>d3 e5 = 0-1-0</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-03-17T01:01:05.550Z
Answers.Text: However, it should be noted that Deep Blue was using an opening book.
Answers.UserDisplayName: NM Wesley Falcao
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-03-17T01:49:38.330Z
Answers.Text: Yes, and it was effectively a tailored engine specifically aimed at beating Kasparov. Interestingly enough, Kasparov challenged it to a rematch, and IBM refused, to which they then went ahead to dismantle the machine. Kasparov did not have the benefit of studying his opponent as the IBM team did.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Anon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-03-17T09:24:25.977Z
Answers.Text: Kasparov also played "well known anti-computer tactics" before it left the opening book he was at a disadvantage. (Source, preface of Batsford's Modern Chess Openings and wikipedia and stuff, book by Nick De Firmian)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Alec Teal
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-06T14:46:11.700Z
Answers.Text: @Alec Was Kasparov not aware that there would be an opening book used? It seems to me that anyone writing such a book would have prepared for "anti-computer tactics", especially if they were well known.
Answers.UserDisplayName: undergroundmonorail
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-06T15:41:30.687Z
Answers.Text: @undergroundmonorail I'm not sure. A moment of empathy though, imagine the gamble, do I try anti-computer tactics or not? It is evident that the games are not as lovely as Kasparov's usual. EVEN in the opening. Also this is a man who has forgotten about the chess clock before, maybe he didn't research it, who knows.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Alec Teal
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-06T15:44:45.803Z
Answers.Text: @Alec That's true. Admittedly, I'm not actually all that knowledgeable about chess (I've probably played a full game of it less than 50 times, I'm only really here because I find people talking about it interesting) so I don't really know what to look for when evaluating how "lovely" a game is.
Answers.UserDisplayName: undergroundmonorail
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-07T08:58:32.953Z
Answers.Text: @undergroundmonorail that's okay, I know I was right.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Alec Teal
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-03-16T22:46:16.527Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-03-16T22:46:16.527Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Anon
Body: <p>Title says it all. Feel free to add comment, theory, or explanation. </p>
  
  <p>Just to clarify, this is only regarding turn 1 of White, and no proceeding turns after it.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-03-16T00:50:16.317Z
Comments.Text: At what depth? Brute force doesn't exhaust all possibilities of chess yet, so depth is important.
Comments.UserDisplayName: NM Wesley Falcao
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-03-16T00:59:36.253Z
Comments.Text: That is a great point, one that I intentionally omitted for the sake of brevity/clarity. I think it is best to list at any depth, to see if a pattern emerges as to how the choice evolves, if at all.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Anon
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-03-16T14:24:05.840Z
Comments.Text: I don't know what the current engines can do, but as opening theory is usually over 20 moves deep, that is pretty far for a chess engine. As position evaluation in the opening is  different than the rest of the game and engines rely on opening books, their evaluation functions are not tuned for the opening.
Comments.UserDisplayName: newshutz
Tags: <opening><theory><engines><statistics><evaluation>
Title: What are the first moves chosen (White), by brute force chess engines?
ThreadText: # What are the first moves chosen (White), by brute force chess engines?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2014-03-15)
  
  Title says it all. Feel free to add comment, theory, or explanation.
  
  Just to clarify, this is only regarding turn 1 of White, and no proceeding turns after it.
  
  **Tags:** opening, theory, engines, statistics, evaluation
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: At what depth? Brute force doesn't exhaust all possibilities of chess yet, so depth is important.  
  > **username_0**: That is a great point, one that I intentionally omitted for the sake of brevity/clarity. I think it is best to list at any depth, to see if a pattern emerges as to how the choice evolves, if at all.  
  > **username_2**: I don't know what the current engines can do, but as opening theory is usually over 20 moves deep, that is pretty far for a chess engine. As position evaluation in the opening is  different than the rest of the game and engines rely on opening books, their evaluation functions are not tuned for the opening.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 5 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2014-03-16. Score: 4
  
  Houdini 1.5 on my old machine (1.8 G 2 cpu) slows down a lot around 20 ply (10 moves).
  
  At 20 ply, it seems to slightly favor a four knights queen pawn game, starting with d4 or Nf3 over the Four Knights (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6)
  
  it switches at 22 ply to the Ruy Lopez Berlin (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Be7).
  
  at ply 23, it switches back to d-pawn four knights, but starting with 1.Nf3
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2014-05-09. Score: 3
  
  **None** - yet.
  
  [Brute Force](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute-force_search) is a pretty well defined problem solving technique that consists of checking each and every candidate for whether it is a solution. Since we are starting at move 1, a **candidate** has to be defined as **a complete game of chess** and the only possible **objective criterion** for its evaluation is whether it **forces a win for white** or not. No engine has analyzed a forced win for white from move 1 so far, so **no actual brute-force engine has reached a conclusion yet**.
  
  As soon as you introduce a [**heuristic**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic) (or multiple ones like positional advantage, material advantage, space advantage...) for evaluating **partial solutions** (game positions that are not a checkmate yet) and their distance to a complete solution, **like all chess engines do**, it stops being a brute-force engine. Those evaluation techniques are the reason why chess engines are able to choose moves **at all** until the whole space of possible chess games is solved and/or a force win for white is found (which I think is highly unlikely).
  
  Thus, my answer is that there are no brute-force engines in use today - if there were one it would still be thinking. Yes, brute-force might be used to describe the basic technique that modern heuristics developed from, but the evaluation criteria are actually a lot more important for an engine's capabilities. To put it bluntly, calling todays chess engines 'brute-force' is akin to calling a house a 'hole-thing', just because you need to dig a hole for the foundation. The rest is much more important and interesting.
  
  I hope you, dear reader, will not take this as nit-picking on words, but as an addendum to the **actual answers** already given by other people. They answer the spirit of the question, this one... just the semantics - there was nothing else left to answer. :)
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2014-05-06. Score: 1
  
  [A very interesting article regarding this](http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman131.pdf).
  
  It gives an overview of what Houdini suggests for the first few moves for White (and also Black).
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_5**: Please say a few words about why you find it interesting, and not just give the link.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2014-03-16. Score: 1
  
  A chess engine works by trying to "rate" positions, and evaluate how strong they are. It could find a checkmate in 4 moves (that one where white checkmates by getting queen to f7 (IIRC)) but it'd be stupid to consider this "AHA! My evaluation is that I have won!" As such it is very subjective as it depends hugely on what it thinks the opponents best move is.
  
  It is for this reason it is not (read: I really really doubt, with my mathsy-background) known if chess is a fair game, that is will "perfect" playing by both sides lead to a draw, or white or black to win, because that "perfect" part is so subjective.
  
  With 0s and Xs, it is a fair game because it is easy to show that "perfect" playing leads to a draw.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: **It is for this reason it is not that it is know if chess is a fair game** Pardon?  
  > **username_6**: @Akiva sorry, yeah "has anyone ever been so far as to decide what not to look like" moment, I'll fix it! - Fixed!  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_0 on 2014-03-16. Score: 0
  
  Figured I'd post the famous Deep Blue vs Kasparov games. 
  Game #  White       Black       Result  Opening     Comment
  1       Deep Blue   Kasparov    1–0     e4 c5
  2       Kasparov    Deep Blue   1–0     Nf3 d5
  3       Deep Blue   Kasparov    ½–½     e4 c5       Draw by mutual agreement
  4       Kasparov    Deep Blue   ½–½     Nf3 d5      Draw by mutual agreement
  5       Deep Blue   Kasparov    0–1     e4 e5       Kasparov offered a draw after the 23rd move.
  6       Kasparov    Deep Blue   1–0     Nf3 d5
  Result: Kasparov–Deep Blue: 4–2
  
  
  Game #  White       Black       Result  Opening     Comment
  1       Kasparov    Deep Blue   1–0     Nf3 d5
  2       Deep Blue   Kasparov    1–0     e4 e5
  3       Kasparov    Deep Blue   ½–½     d3 e5       Draw by mutual agreement
  4       Deep Blue   Kasparov    ½–½     e4 c6       Draw by mutual agreement
  5       Kasparov    Deep Blue   ½–½     Nf3 d5      Draw by mutual agreement
  6       Deep Blue   Kasparov    1–0     e4 c6
  Result: Deep Blue–Kasparov: 3½–2½
  
  Deep Blue
  e4 c5 = 1-0-1
  e4 c6 = 1-0-1
  e4 e5 = 1-1-0
  Kasparov
  Nf3 d5 = 3-2-0
  d3 e5 = 0-1-0
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: However, it should be noted that Deep Blue was using an opening book.  
  > **username_0**: Yes, and it was effectively a tailored engine specifically aimed at beating Kasparov. Interestingly enough, Kasparov challenged it to a rematch, and IBM refused, to which they then went ahead to dismantle the machine. Kasparov did not have the benefit of studying his opponent as the IBM team did.  
  > **username_6**: Kasparov also played "well known anti-computer tactics" before it left the opening book he was at a disadvantage. (Source, preface of Batsford's Modern Chess Openings and wikipedia and stuff, book by Nick De Firmian)  
  > **username_7**: @Alec Was Kasparov not aware that there would be an opening book used? It seems to me that anyone writing such a book would have prepared for "anti-computer tactics", especially if they were well known.  
  > **username_6**: @username_7 I'm not sure. A moment of empathy though, imagine the gamble, do I try anti-computer tactics or not? It is evident that the games are not as lovely as Kasparov's usual. EVEN in the opening. Also this is a man who has forgotten about the chess clock before, maybe he didn't research it, who knows.  
  > **username_7**: @Alec That's true. Admittedly, I'm not actually all that knowledgeable about chess (I've probably played a full game of it less than 50 times, I'm only really here because I find people talking about it interesting) so I don't really know what to look for when evaluating how "lovely" a game is.  
  > **username_6**: @username_7 that's okay, I know I was right.  
  
  ---
  
  