Answers.Body: <p>Since 1.e4 and 1.d4 are considered equal by most experts, the value will really depend on your style: If you are a tactical player, you are more likely to get the types of positions that you favor. I am older, and a positional player, so I play 1.d4 for the same reason: I tend to get more positional games, and I am a pretty good positional player.</p>
  
  <p>Whether an opening is truly equal, or even if you have a slight advantage, the real advantage is getting a position that you are comfortable with and have experience with, and that your opponent is less comfortable with. If you are in a tactical position, and the position is technically equal, but you stink at tactics, and are sure to make a mistake, it could be thought of as not equal for you, regardless of whether a computer likes it.</p>
  
  <p>We see Carlsen all the time just trying to avoid book, and get "his" positions.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-06T22:11:21.243Z
Answers.Text: I would also say that just because the top neural networks don't play 1.e4 doesn't mean that they think it's bad. It simply means that they just prefer 1.d4 or 1.Nf3 or 1. c4.
Answers.UserDisplayName: SubhanKhan
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-07T00:03:03.357Z
Answers.Text: Is it really the case that AlphaZero doesn't play 1.e4 much? I'm just an interested bystandar, but from reading the AlphaZero paper, the conclusion I came away with is that in self-play training, its most-played opening was the Berlin defense, starting with 1. e4 e5.
Answers.UserDisplayName: amalloy
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-07T01:53:53.943Z
Answers.Text: @Universal_learner When I look at the [Supplemental Data](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2018/12/05/362.6419.1140.DC1) included with the Dec 2018 publication, it lists the positions most arrived at during *self-play* games, and at the end of its training it was visiting the Berlin most often. This suggests to me that it thinks this opening is fine for white, not just for black - if d4 were better, white wouldn't offer so many e4 openings, right? Am I misinterpreting this data somehow?
Answers.UserDisplayName: amalloy
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-07T06:41:48.603Z
Answers.Text: I see, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining.
Answers.UserDisplayName: amalloy
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-01-16T22:28:57.980Z
Answers.Text: Please cite a source as to how e4 is more tactical while d4 is more positional. Sounds very interesting. I think i saw a video once about how scotch game is tactical or something.
Answers.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-06T15:13:24.233Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-01-06T15:13:24.233Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.Body: <p>No. AI has not changed the evaluation of 1. e4. AI is too limited to be able to see far enough into the game to evaluate the first move that accurately. Best you can do is estimate it even with AI.</p>
  <p>The best we can do ourselves is look at top GM results. At the highest levels it gives white 9% more wins but over 50% draws. Net scoring white to black is 55% to 45%.</p>
  <p>For all players, meaning good players in tournaments not beginners and casual club players, e4 gives white under 7% advantage with just under 30% draws. Net is just under 53% for white to 47% for black.</p>
  <p>And at the very highest levels white seems to do better than when used by players at lower levels.</p>
  <p>What seems to matter more than the opening is the players themselves: How good they are, what type of position they prefer to play, and other intangible factors such as what moves followed e4 as all the other various openings would have their own statistics too.</p>
  <p>The paucity of games by high rated players also colors the results. There are lots of games with e4, but only a handful starting with 1. d3 even though ALL of those games were won by white. Does that make d3 the best first move? NO! It means that Nakamura used it a few times and beat 4 other players with it. One was Carauna! Does that mean that d3 is the best first move? NO! It might mean that 1...Nf6 by Carauna was not the best reply. Or it might mean that later on Nakamura outplayed Carauna and the previous moves were just fine after the position became a King's Indian Defense played by white with an extra tempo.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-06T16:16:22.547Z
Answers.Text: How did you get those statistics? In the Mega 2020 database, updated to this week, there are 8,068,186 games, but that includes games from some lower-rated players. The scoring is 1.e4 52.8% for white, 1.d4 is actually higher at 54.3%, 1.Nf3 comes in the highest at 55.4%, and 1.c4 is 54.4%. I am not trying to attack you, but I am genuinely curious.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-06T16:57:24.543Z
Answers.Text: I pulled them off the largest database I have access to.  I have access to others with fewer games that will vary some.  I am not surprise that Mega2020 or Chessbase or others that require money to use might differ some.  Yes some moves theoretically come in at slightly better than 1e4.  But that was shown to be irrelevant by my example showing what the players did long after the first move mattered much more.   The first numbers were for games by players over 2700.  The second was for 'all' games.
Answers.UserDisplayName: yobamamama
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-06T17:05:58.340Z
Answers.Text: @PhishMaster    For Nf3  it shows white winning outright 38.3 for 2700+ players and winning   only  30.4 for all games.   For overall score it is 55.9/44.1  and 55.2/44.8 respectively.    So add in the factor whether a player needs to play for a win versus just playing as good as possible to also disrupt the statistics.
Answers.UserDisplayName: yobamamama
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-06T17:17:12.427Z
Answers.Text: @yobamamama I just searched Mega 2020 for all games with both players above 2700, and with the ECO codes A04-A09, which is 1.Nf3. There are 423 games, with a record of 177 wins for white (41.8%), 90 wins for black (21.3%), and 156 draws (36.9%). That is an overall score of 60.2, which is very impressive.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-06T17:22:29.220Z
Answers.Text: Yes it is.  And as I noted, all databases will vary some.  As do the many engines.  Perfection is not possible.  And you might think more top GMs would play Nf3 for better results.  But there are those other pesky factors that also influence the final result.  One size fits nobody and that is what makes chess fun to play.  If we all knew the ONE line that led to the ONE CORRECT result would anyone want to play chess any more?
Answers.UserDisplayName: yobamamama
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-06T15:29:55.983Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-12-28T15:41:24.410Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2022-12-28T15:41:24.410Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: yobamamama
Answers.Body: <p>I'm writing this answer from the chess AI perspective. As of 2022, the best chess engines do play 1. e4 if left to their own devices (i.e., no opening book). Here are links to two very long time control games by <a href="https://tcec-chess.com/#div=svvltc&amp;game=2&amp;season=23" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Stockfish</a> &amp; <a href="https://tcec-chess.com/#div=svvltc&amp;game=1&amp;season=23" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Leela Chess Zero</a>, the best and second-best chess engines right now. Both of them played 1. e4. Lc0-Stockfish ended up in a Ruy Lopez Berlin, while Stockfish-Lc0 ended in an Open Ruy.</p>
  <p>That said, I'd point out that both engines were very pessimistic about their chances of <em>winning</em> with 1. e4. Leela saw ~90% chance of draw, while Stockfish saw ~80%. This isn't surprising, since virtually everyone thinks chess from the starting position is a draw. The goal of opening preparation is not so much to reach a winning position, but rather to reach a position where you can pressure the opponent. From this perspective, 1. e4 remains as good as ever - it was played several times in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_2021" rel="nofollow noreferrer">World Chess Championship 2021</a>.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-12-28T16:26:52.643Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-12-28T16:26:52.643Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Allure
Answers.Body: <p>It's still one of the best moves White can play. There's no clear consensus on whether 1.e4 or 1.d4 is better, but it's played frequently at the top level. Due to advancements in theory, I'd say 1.e4 isn't regarded quite as highly as it was in the past, but again it's most likely White's best/second best move.</p>
  
  <p>Advancements in AI aren't really affecting theory on the first move. Games from AlphaZero/Leela are good for new ways of thinking in the middlegame or late opening, but they're not changing our fundamental opening understanding.</p>
  
  <p>EDIT - also, technically 1.e4 isn't "best by test" currently. In my database it scores 52.8%, while 1.d4 scores 54.4%. But to be fair, 1.e4 has been played in roughly 1.5 million more games, and the types of players who favour 1.e4/1.d4 may differ.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-06T15:12:37.733Z
Answers.Text: e4 refuted by AlphaZero would be a great april fool's post.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Michael West
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-06T16:21:46.790Z
Answers.Text: For an interesting experiment, try subtracting out all 1. e4 c5 from the e4 games. Last time I did that the e4 score went up almost to the same level as the 1. d4 score was. One possible interpretation of that is that the majority approach to it (open variations following 2 d4 cd) is suboptimal and white should look for a better path. Data analysis often challenges accepted wisdom like that, and doing that sort of analysis is one of the better uses for a chess db.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Arlen
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-06T16:42:50.383Z
Answers.Text: @Arlen I think a slightly better conclusion is that 1...c5 is just good, since the open variations are White's best try for a real advantage.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Inertial Ignorance
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-06T16:59:49.327Z
Answers.Text: A possible conclusion, definitely. But how do you *know* they're White's best try? Because that's what someone told you? Or because you looked at the data and the positions? Bent Larsen used to call 2 d4 a "cheap trap" and he was strong enough that what he says deserves to be investigated. I don't think either proposition is proven, yet. It's like how Lasker called 3 ... a6 in the Ruy Lopez a "waste of time" yet it was accepted as best for a century until Kramnik dusted off the Berlin and now that's a mainstream option. We should always question whether a move is fashion or quality.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Arlen
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-07T05:54:54.143Z
Answers.Text: @Arlen Sure, there's no way to definitively prove what I'm saying, but the open variations are most likely White's best try for an advantage. Also, when Kramnik used the Berlin against Kasparov, computers weren't nearly as powerful as they are now (and theory wasn't as extensive). If there was some groundbreaking new idea so early on, it wouldn't be hidden from us.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Inertial Ignorance
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-06T15:02:33.757Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-01-06T15:31:59.790Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-01-06T15:31:59.790Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Inertial Ignorance
Body: <p>Bobby Fischer:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>e4 -- best by test.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>What is the current theory or trend in theory behind this statement?</p>
  
  <p>We have seen huge strides taken in chess AI in the past two years. How is this affecting opening theory regarding the "best first move"?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-01-07T11:53:24.570Z
Comments.Text: IIRC, `1.d4` AlphaZero cycled through a number of openings (e4, c4, ...) as its "best" opening choice, but settled on `1. d4` near the end of its training. But that doesn't really say what is provably "best"... just what some engine happens to think it can play with best.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Mateen Ulhaq
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-01-07T16:26:06.543Z
Comments.Text: If chess is the kind of game where a draw is forced with perfect play from both sides (which I believe is widely believed to be the case), then any opening move that doesn't put you into a "losing" game, is equally as good. A similar argument can be made if chess is in fact a game where white always wins with perfect play.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Cruncher
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-01-08T22:27:50.183Z
Comments.Text: @Cruncher If it's the case that White wins with perfect play though, only certain first move(s) might lead to a win, and the others draws. So here the first move you play could matter in this sense.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Inertial Ignorance
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-01-09T05:45:14.787Z
Comments.Text: Well of course. That's exactly the same as if it's a drawish game. All moves that keep it drawish are equivalent, and all moves that make it losing are equivalent. This is exactly the case if it's a winning game. All moves that keep it winning are equivalent, all moves that make it drawish are equivalent, and all moves that make it losing are equivalent. I said a similar argument could be made, I didn't think I needed to spell it out
Comments.UserDisplayName: Cruncher
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-01-16T22:26:13.217Z
Comments.Text: Related? https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/19946/on-1-e4-fischer-and-opening-theory
Comments.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Tags: <opening><1.e4><fischer><chess-ai>
Title: What is the opening value of 1. e4 in 2020?
ThreadText: # What is the opening value of 1. e4 in 2020?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2020-01-06)
  
  Bobby Fischer:
  
  > e4 -- best by test.
  
  What is the current theory or trend in theory behind this statement?
  
  We have seen huge strides taken in chess AI in the past two years. How is this affecting opening theory regarding the "best first move"?
  
  **Tags:** opening, 1.e4, fischer, chess-ai
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: IIRC, `1.d4` AlphaZero cycled through a number of openings (e4, c4, ...) as its "best" opening choice, but settled on `1. d4` near the end of its training. But that doesn't really say what is provably "best"... just what some engine happens to think it can play with best.  
  > **username_2**: If chess is the kind of game where a draw is forced with perfect play from both sides (which I believe is widely believed to be the case), then any opening move that doesn't put you into a "losing" game, is equally as good. A similar argument can be made if chess is in fact a game where white always wins with perfect play.  
  > **username_3**: @username_2 If it's the case that White wins with perfect play though, only certain first move(s) might lead to a win, and the others draws. So here the first move you play could matter in this sense.  
  > **username_2**: Well of course. That's exactly the same as if it's a drawish game. All moves that keep it drawish are equivalent, and all moves that make it losing are equivalent. This is exactly the case if it's a winning game. All moves that keep it winning are equivalent, all moves that make it drawish are equivalent, and all moves that make it losing are equivalent. I said a similar argument could be made, I didn't think I needed to spell it out  
  > **username_4**: Related? https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/19946/on-1-e4-fischer-and-opening-theory  
  
  ---
  
  ## 4 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2020-01-06. Score: 16 | Accepted answer
  
  It's still one of the best moves White can play. There's no clear consensus on whether 1.e4 or 1.d4 is better, but it's played frequently at the top level. Due to advancements in theory, I'd say 1.e4 isn't regarded quite as highly as it was in the past, but again it's most likely White's best/second best move.
  
  Advancements in AI aren't really affecting theory on the first move. Games from AlphaZero/Leela are good for new ways of thinking in the middlegame or late opening, but they're not changing our fundamental opening understanding.
  
  EDIT - also, technically 1.e4 isn't "best by test" currently. In my database it scores 52.8%, while 1.d4 scores 54.4%. But to be fair, 1.e4 has been played in roughly 1.5 million more games, and the types of players who favour 1.e4/1.d4 may differ.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_10**: e4 refuted by AlphaZero would be a great april fool's post.  
  > **username_11**: For an interesting experiment, try subtracting out all 1. e4 c5 from the e4 games. Last time I did that the e4 score went up almost to the same level as the 1. d4 score was. One possible interpretation of that is that the majority approach to it (open variations following 2 d4 cd) is suboptimal and white should look for a better path. Data analysis often challenges accepted wisdom like that, and doing that sort of analysis is one of the better uses for a chess db.  
  > **username_3**: @username_11 I think a slightly better conclusion is that 1...c5 is just good, since the open variations are White's best try for a real advantage.  
  > **username_11**: A possible conclusion, definitely. But how do you *know* they're White's best try? Because that's what someone told you? Or because you looked at the data and the positions? Bent Larsen used to call 2 d4 a "cheap trap" and he was strong enough that what he says deserves to be investigated. I don't think either proposition is proven, yet. It's like how Lasker called 3 ... a6 in the Ruy Lopez a "waste of time" yet it was accepted as best for a century until Kramnik dusted off the Berlin and now that's a mainstream option. We should always question whether a move is fashion or quality.  
  > **username_3**: @username_11 Sure, there's no way to definitively prove what I'm saying, but the open variations are most likely White's best try for an advantage. Also, when Kramnik used the Berlin against Kasparov, computers weren't nearly as powerful as they are now (and theory wasn't as extensive). If there was some groundbreaking new idea so early on, it wouldn't be hidden from us.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2020-01-06. Score: 6
  
  Since 1.e4 and 1.d4 are considered equal by most experts, the value will really depend on your style: If you are a tactical player, you are more likely to get the types of positions that you favor. I am older, and a positional player, so I play 1.d4 for the same reason: I tend to get more positional games, and I am a pretty good positional player.
  
  Whether an opening is truly equal, or even if you have a slight advantage, the real advantage is getting a position that you are comfortable with and have experience with, and that your opponent is less comfortable with. If you are in a tactical position, and the position is technically equal, but you stink at tactics, and are sure to make a mistake, it could be thought of as not equal for you, regardless of whether a computer likes it.
  
  We see Carlsen all the time just trying to avoid book, and get "his" positions.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_6**: I would also say that just because the top neural networks don't play 1.e4 doesn't mean that they think it's bad. It simply means that they just prefer 1.d4 or 1.Nf3 or 1. c4.  
  > **username_7**: Is it really the case that AlphaZero doesn't play 1.e4 much? I'm just an interested bystandar, but from reading the AlphaZero paper, the conclusion I came away with is that in self-play training, its most-played opening was the Berlin defense, starting with 1. e4 e5.  
  > **username_7**: @Universal_learner When I look at the [Supplemental Data](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2018/12/05/362.6419.1140.DC1) included with the Dec 2018 publication, it lists the positions most arrived at during *self-play* games, and at the end of its training it was visiting the Berlin most often. This suggests to me that it thinks this opening is fine for white, not just for black - if d4 were better, white wouldn't offer so many e4 openings, right? Am I misinterpreting this data somehow?  
  > **username_7**: I see, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining.  
  > **username_4**: Please cite a source as to how e4 is more tactical while d4 is more positional. Sounds very interesting. I think i saw a video once about how scotch game is tactical or something.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_8 on 2020-01-06. Score: 5
  
  No. AI has not changed the evaluation of 1. e4. AI is too limited to be able to see far enough into the game to evaluate the first move that accurately. Best you can do is estimate it even with AI.
  
  The best we can do ourselves is look at top GM results. At the highest levels it gives white 9% more wins but over 50% draws. Net scoring white to black is 55% to 45%.
  
  For all players, meaning good players in tournaments not beginners and casual club players, e4 gives white under 7% advantage with just under 30% draws. Net is just under 53% for white to 47% for black.
  
  And at the very highest levels white seems to do better than when used by players at lower levels.
  
  What seems to matter more than the opening is the players themselves: How good they are, what type of position they prefer to play, and other intangible factors such as what moves followed e4 as all the other various openings would have their own statistics too.
  
  The paucity of games by high rated players also colors the results. There are lots of games with e4, but only a handful starting with 1. d3 even though ALL of those games were won by white. Does that make d3 the best first move? NO! It means that Nakamura used it a few times and beat 4 other players with it. One was Carauna! Does that mean that d3 is the best first move? NO! It might mean that 1...Nf6 by Carauna was not the best reply. Or it might mean that later on Nakamura outplayed Carauna and the previous moves were just fine after the position became a King's Indian Defense played by white with an extra tempo.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_5**: How did you get those statistics? In the Mega 2020 database, updated to this week, there are 8,068,186 games, but that includes games from some lower-rated players. The scoring is 1.e4 52.8% for white, 1.d4 is actually higher at 54.3%, 1.Nf3 comes in the highest at 55.4%, and 1.c4 is 54.4%. I am not trying to attack you, but I am genuinely curious.  
  > **username_8**: I pulled them off the largest database I have access to.  I have access to others with fewer games that will vary some.  I am not surprise that Mega2020 or Chessbase or others that require money to use might differ some.  Yes some moves theoretically come in at slightly better than 1e4.  But that was shown to be irrelevant by my example showing what the players did long after the first move mattered much more.   The first numbers were for games by players over 2700.  The second was for 'all' games.  
  > **username_8**: @username_5    For Nf3  it shows white winning outright 38.3 for 2700+ players and winning   only  30.4 for all games.   For overall score it is 55.9/44.1  and 55.2/44.8 respectively.    So add in the factor whether a player needs to play for a win versus just playing as good as possible to also disrupt the statistics.  
  > **username_5**: @username_8 I just searched Mega 2020 for all games with both players above 2700, and with the ECO codes A04-A09, which is 1.Nf3. There are 423 games, with a record of 177 wins for white (41.8%), 90 wins for black (21.3%), and 156 draws (36.9%). That is an overall score of 60.2, which is very impressive.  
  > **username_8**: Yes it is.  And as I noted, all databases will vary some.  As do the many engines.  Perfection is not possible.  And you might think more top GMs would play Nf3 for better results.  But there are those other pesky factors that also influence the final result.  One size fits nobody and that is what makes chess fun to play.  If we all knew the ONE line that led to the ONE CORRECT result would anyone want to play chess any more?  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2022-12-28. Score: 4
  
  I'm writing this answer from the chess AI perspective. As of 2022, the best chess engines do play 1. e4 if left to their own devices (i.e., no opening book). Here are links to two very long time control games by [Stockfish](https://tcec-chess.com/#div=svvltc&game=2&season=23) & [Leela Chess Zero](https://tcec-chess.com/#div=svvltc&game=1&season=23), the best and second-best chess engines right now. Both of them played 1. e4. Lc0-Stockfish ended up in a Ruy Lopez Berlin, while Stockfish-Lc0 ended in an Open Ruy.
  
  That said, I'd point out that both engines were very pessimistic about their chances of *winning* with 1. e4. Leela saw ~90% chance of draw, while Stockfish saw ~80%. This isn't surprising, since virtually everyone thinks chess from the starting position is a draw. The goal of opening preparation is not so much to reach a winning position, but rather to reach a position where you can pressure the opponent. From this perspective, 1. e4 remains as good as ever - it was played several times in the [World Chess Championship 2021](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_2021).
  
  
  ---
  
  