## 1.g4 opening is losing?

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Dann Corbit, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Zenmastur
Posts: 919
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 6:28 am

### Re: 1.g4 opening is losing?

Uri Blass wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 9:50 am
Zenmastur wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:20 am
lkaufman wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 4:43 am
I think I'll change my opinion from "draw" to "loss" for 1.g4. I let Komodo MCTS think about it for an hour or so and got a -.83 score for it after 1...d5. Usually anything beyond 0.7 is a winning advantage based on playouts from the position. This doesn't mean that I or anyone else can prove the win, just that it is probably the smart way to bet if somehow there were a way to get the answer!
What do you consider proof?

Regards,

Zenmastur
a tree that show a forced mate in all lines is certainly a proof.

1.f3(f4) e6(e5) 2.g4 is proved to be a forced mate for black(white can use a different order of moves)
1.f3(f4) e6(e5) 2.h3 is also proved to be a forced mate for black(white can use a different order of moves)

I am not sure if you can find a proof for a forced mate after 3 plies except these examples
There are some lines when white lose the queen like
1.e3 Nf6 2.Qg4 or 1.e4 g6 2.Qh5
I am sure that black win in them but I am not sure if you can prove a forced mate for black in one of them
Well...

I know what a proof tree looks like. I also believe that with current hardware generating a proof tree for 1.g4 is out of the question.

I'll be happy with any score of -3.xx or less (since that's what I recalled/claimed).

Regards,

Zenmastur
Only 2 defining forces have ever offered to die for you.....Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

Ovyron
Posts: 4410
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:30 am

### Re: 1.g4 opening is losing?

Harvey Williamson wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:03 pm
Ovyron wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:38 pm
I'm willing to defend 1.g4 against anybody that seriously think it is losing, and I guarantee that I can draw them.
Am willing to give it a go 1...d5. if you want to play we should probably play the game in the tournaments and matches sub-forum?
Thanks Harvey, here's a link to our game.

[too long text suppressed]
Your beliefs create your reality, so be careful what you wish for.

Harvey Williamson
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 9:12 pm
Location: Newport. Shropshire, UK.
Full name: Harvey Williamson
Contact:

### Re: 1.g4 opening is losing?

Ovyron wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:01 pm
Harvey Williamson wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:03 pm
Ovyron wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:38 pm
I'm willing to defend 1.g4 against anybody that seriously think it is losing, and I guarantee that I can draw them.
Am willing to give it a go 1...d5. if you want to play we should probably play the game in the tournaments and matches sub-forum?
Thanks Harvey, here's a link to our game.

[too long text suppressed]
For those of you that do not look at the tournaments sub forum here is the game
0-1

Ovyron
Posts: 4410
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:30 am

### Re: 1.g4 opening is losing?

Harvey Williamson wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:24 am
Ovyron wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:01 pm
Harvey Williamson wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:03 pm
Ovyron wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:38 pm
I'm willing to defend 1.g4 against anybody that seriously think it is losing, and I guarantee that I can draw them.
Am willing to give it a go 1...d5. if you want to play we should probably play the game in the tournaments and matches sub-forum?
Thanks Harvey, here's a link to our game.

[too long text suppressed]
For those of you that do not look at the tournaments sub forum here is the game
0-1
But what do you think Harvey? Is g4 defensible? If so, at what point did I go from drawing to losing?

Harvey Williamson
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 9:12 pm
Location: Newport. Shropshire, UK.
Full name: Harvey Williamson
Contact:

### Re: 1.g4 opening is losing?

Ovyron wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 4:15 am
But what do you think Harvey? Is g4 defensible? If so, at what point did I go from drawing to losing?
I think g4 is probably losing. I think possibly another move 2 could be worth a try. Uri posted analysis somewhere that according to Stockfish 2. c4!? Is worth a look. I can’t find any games where this has been tried.

Pio
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:42 pm
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

### Re: 1.g4 opening is losing?

Harvey Williamson wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 4:23 am
Ovyron wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 4:15 am
But what do you think Harvey? Is g4 defensible? If so, at what point did I go from drawing to losing?
I think g4 is probably losing. I think possibly another move 2 could be worth a try. Uri posted analysis somewhere that according to Stockfish 2. c4!? Is worth a look. I can’t find any games where this has been tried.
I think the short castling was the big error of white. I base that on my very very bad chess skills

/Pio

jdart
Posts: 4078
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:23 am
Location: http://www.arasanchess.org

### Re: 1.g4 opening is losing?

A while back I was experimenting with a book learning system, and for a while it was selecting a number of "bad" moves including 1. g4. What I found was that even with poor opening choices the draw rate with Stockfish (self-play) was very high. This kind of screwed up the learning because poor choices weren't "punished" with bad outcomes. Playing against another engine would probably reduce the draw rate, and in a match-up with a stronger engine playing 1. g4 might be a bad idea. But it seems defensible with a strong engine. 1. b4 was ok, too.

--Jon

Zenmastur
Posts: 919
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 6:28 am

### Re: 1.g4 opening is losing?

jdart wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 4:08 pm
A while back I was experimenting with a book learning system, and for a while it was selecting a number of "bad" moves including 1. g4. What I found was that even with poor opening choices the draw rate with Stockfish (self-play) was very high. This kind of screwed up the learning because poor choices weren't "punished" with bad outcomes. Playing against another engine would probably reduce the draw rate, and in a match-up with a stronger engine playing 1. g4 might be a bad idea. But it seems defensible with a strong engine. 1. b4 was ok, too.

--Jon
Sounds like a weak move selection algorithm, or not using all the knowledge you have available, or too high expectation of the learning rate, or a combination of all three.

I'm kind of curious what was the time controls you were using? I think this plays a huge role in learning rate per unit time spent.

Regards,

Zenmastur
Only 2 defining forces have ever offered to die for you.....Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

jdart
Posts: 4078
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:23 am
Location: http://www.arasanchess.org

### Re: 1.g4 opening is losing?

Sounds like a weak move selection algorithm, or not using all the knowledge you have available, or too high expectation of the learning rate, or a combination of all three.

I'm kind of curious what was the time controls you were using? I think this plays a huge role in learning rate per unit time spent.
I didn't get very far with this but I was using a fairly long time control. Shorter TC would give less of a draw rate and faster learning but also I think more randomness in the results. The problem is, I think even in the best case, you need a very large number of games to get convergence. In a lot of cases one move scores 60% and another 55%. That is significant but getting to the point where you see that difference is going to take time. You could also optimize for scores out of the search, which I think a lot of people have done, but IMO that is less reliable. For example, something like the Ruy Lopez Marshall Gambit where Black is a pawn down may give you minus scores, but most of the endgames are drawn.

jjoshua2
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2018 5:16 am

### Re: 1.g4 opening is losing?

lkaufman wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:41 pm
I think that the best we can do at the present time to tell if a given opening position (not one that is obviously apt to be solved by brute force) is a win or a draw is to run the strongest version of Lc0 on it for a few minutes on a 2080 or better GPU with win prob. display. The threshold for a won position is probably about 70% or perhaps slightly higher, 71 or 72%, based on everything I've observed. For 1 g4?, it is about 68% for Black with 1...d5, so probably not a forced win although close enough to the line to leave that as a possibility.
Leelenstein 13 already is below 30% winrate after g4 d5. By 10 million nodes it has switched from preferring g2 to c4 (which someone else mentioned as possibility), when it saw how bad g2 was, and then c4 dropped some more too. With more time its probably easy to get to your 71% threshold.

Code: Select all

``````info depth 17 seldepth 45 time 430635 nodes 8239992 score cp 2917 hashfull 1000 nps 19133 tbhits 0 multipv 1 pv c2c4 e7e5 f1g2 d5c4 b1c3 g8e7 d1a4 b8c6 g1f3 e7g6 a4c4 c8e6 c4a4 g6f4 h1g1 f4g2 g1g2 d8d7 d2d3 h7h5 g4g5 e6g4 f3h4 e8c8 c1e3 a7a6 a1c1 c8b8 a2a3 f8e7 c3e4 c6d4 a4d7 d8d7 e3d4
info depth 17 seldepth 45 time 430635 nodes 8239992 score cp 2916 hashfull 1000 nps 19133 tbhits 0 multipv 2 pv f1g2 c8g4 c2c4 c7c6 d1b3 e7e6 b3b7 b8d7 b1c3 g8e7 c4d5 e6d5 d2d4 a8b8 b7a6 b8b6 a6d3 e7g6 h2h3 g4e6 g1f3 f8d6 h3h4 h7h6 g2h3 e6h3 h1h3 e8g8 h4h5 g6e7 h3h1 c6c5 b2b3 c5d4 c3a4 b6c6 f3d4 c6c8 c1b2 d6e5 a1d1
info depth 17 seldepth 45 time 430635 nodes 8239992 score cp 2844 hashfull 1000 nps 19133 tbhits 0 multipv 3 pv h2h3 h7h5 g4h5 e7e5 d2d3 b8c6 f1g2 g8f6 b1c3 c8e6 c1g5 f8e7 e2e3 d5d4 e3d4 e5d4 g5f6 g7f6 c3e2 d8d6 e2g3 e8c8 g1e2 f6f5 d1d2 e7f8 e1g1 f8h6 f2f4``````
EDIT: go 30 million easily did it. Probably still dropping too; thats why multiPV ordering is funny.

Code: Select all

``````info depth 25 seldepth 60 time 568285 nodes 24554674 score cp 2871 hashfull 1000 nps 16504 tbhits 0 multipv 1 pv c2c4 e7e5 f1g2 d5c4 b1c3 b8c6 d1a4 g8e7 g1f3 e7g6 a4c4 c8e6 c4a4 d8d7 d2d3 e6g4 c1e3 f8e7 e1c1 a8d8 d3d4 g4f3 g2f3 c6d4 a4d7 d8d7 f3b7 e8g8 c1b1 f8d8 b7a6 g6f4 e3c1 f4h3 h1f1 e7h4 f2f3 g7g6 e2e3 d4e6
info depth 25 seldepth 60 time 568285 nodes 24554674 score cp 2873 hashfull 1000 nps 16504 tbhits 0 multipv 2 pv f1g2 c8g4 c2c4 c7c6 d1b3 e7e6 b3b7 b8d7 b1c3 g8e7 c4d5 e6d5 d2d4 a8b8 b7a6 b8b6 a6d3 e7g6 h2h3 g4e6 g1f3 f8d6 h3h4 h7h6 g2h3 d8f6 h4h5 g6e7 b2b3 e6h3 h1h3 e8g8 c1b2 c6c5 d4c5 d7c5 d3d2 f6f5 h3h4 f8c8 a1d1 c5e4 c3e4 d5e4 f3d4 f5f6 d4f3 f6e6 f3d4 e6d5 e1f1 d6e5 d4f5 d5d2 f5e7 g8f8 d1d2
info depth 25 seldepth 60 time 568285 nodes 24554674 score cp 2884 hashfull 1000 nps 16504 tbhits 0 multipv 3 pv g4g5 e7e5 f1g2 b8c6 d2d4 e5d4 g1f3 h7h6 c2c3 f8e7 h2h4 h6g5 h4g5 h8h1 g2h1 d8d7 f3d4 d7g4 e1f1 e7g5 h1d5 g5c1 d1c1 c6d4 c3d4 g4d4 d5g2 g8f6 b1d2 f6g4 e2e3 d4b6 c1c3 c8e6 a1c1 e8c8 d2e4 e6d5 c3g7 f7f5 e4g3 d5g2 f1g2``````