Rebel wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 07, 2019 10:32 am
1.d4 and 1.e4 10 points
1.c4 and 1.Nf3 8 points
1.f4 6 points
Hmmm, what recent developments in opening theory have showed me is that I'm not sure anymore if our preconceptions about what opening moves are best is good.
This started because of the bin book I downloaded that was bugged, and played 1.Nc3 no matter what, and I had a great performance with it. Then someone beat me with the black pieces, and I took a look, and noticed 1.Nc3 had 0% probability. I "fixed" it, and the book was now playing 1.e4 and 1.d4 as it should. And with those moves people keep beating me with the black pieces and have had the worst performance since then.
What if 1.Nc3 is a great move but people haven't found about it because it's an undiscovered gem? I have been using it to beat +2000 rated players on lichess.com and got 2nd place on < chess.com tourney, no way I could have done that with 1.e4 or 1.d4.
Should we give 1.Nc3 11 points in the test your propose? What if Rybka 2.2n2 (that loves the move) is best on the opening, but plays really badly the early middle game that nobody knows?
Maybe what we need is software like Aiquiry, that allows one engine to be used "as book", to play without book assistance until some point in the game, then switches to Stockfish, or some other at some point in the game, and we see how this new chess entity plays, maybe it'll play better than Stockfish without book all game, maybe some engine can push Leela's results beyond what we've seen. Maybe some engine without book with very low rating helps discover a new variation that is great that nobody has paid attention to because that engine misplays the positions.
The sky is the limit, but we have no idea of what openings are best, just what current entities are best at, but top Correspondence chess players, those that play at 2 years per game time control, have a preferrence of 1.c4 over 1.d4 or 1.e4, because at that level it's easier to with with c4. It's a bit mysterious.