stockfish's and dragon2.6.1's evaluation bugs

[Vernon Crawford]

Still waiting for a proof that e4 is better

I have database of engine games includes almost 15 million games since 2007
(Playchess, Infinity, CCRL, CEGT, SPCC, FastGM, etc.)

It has been very carefully maintained
no duplicates
no quick draws
no games less than 30 moves

has
1. e3 (38721 games) @ 49.0 win%
and
1. e4 (749226 games) @ 56.0 win%

that's good enough for me

[fen]1nb1kbn1/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQ - 0 1 [/fen]

So how much games with the start position above does your 15 M games database contain?

What about first reading a thread before replying into the blue? sigh...

You're suggesting that it's possible that 1. e4 has a lower win% than 1. e3 when the opponent has significantly less material than normal?
Sorry not buying that...

[Guenther]

Still waiting for a proof that e4 is better

I have database of engine games includes almost 15 million games since 2007
(Playchess, Infinity, CCRL, CEGT, SPCC, FastGM, etc.)

It has been very carefully maintained
no duplicates
no quick draws
no games less than 30 moves

has
1. e3 (38721 games) @ 49.0 win%
and
1. e4 (749226 games) @ 56.0 win%

that's good enough for me

[fen]1nb1kbn1/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQ - 0 1 [/fen]

So how much games with the start position above does your 15 M games database contain?

What about first reading a thread before replying into the blue? sigh...

You're suggesting that it's possible that 1. e4 has a lower win% than 1. e3 when the opponent has even less material than normal? :lol:
Sorry not buying that...it's ridiculous to suggest.

You still cannot read, I maintained/suggested nothing except that your database is of no value in this thread,
because you missed, what the thread is about. No handwaving will cure this.

Just a typical 'Crawford' post. Try again when you have 15M games with the relevant position.

[Vernon Crawford]

Still waiting for a proof that e4 is better

I have database of engine games includes almost 15 million games since 2007
(Playchess, Infinity, CCRL, CEGT, SPCC, FastGM, etc.)

It has been very carefully maintained
no duplicates
no quick draws
no games less than 30 moves

has
1. e3 (38721 games) @ 49.0 win%
and
1. e4 (749226 games) @ 56.0 win%

that's good enough for me

[fen]1nb1kbn1/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQ - 0 1 [/fen]

So how much games with the start position above does your 15 M games database contain?

What about first reading a thread before replying into the blue? sigh...

You're suggesting that it's possible that 1. e4 has a lower win% than 1. e3 when the opponent has even less material than normal?
Sorry not buying that...it's ridiculous to suggest.

You still cannot read, I maintained/suggested nothing except that your database is of no value in this thread,
because you missed, what the thread is about. No handwaving will cure this.

Just a typical 'Crawford' post. Try again when you have 15M games with the relevant position.

If 1.e4 is significantly better than 1.e3 in the standard opening position, then it's even better (or the same) if the opponent is down a huge amount of material. Can you not understand that?

[Sopel]

Still waiting for a proof that e4 is better

I have database of engine games includes almost 15 million games since 2007
(Playchess, Infinity, CCRL, CEGT, SPCC, FastGM, etc.)

It has been very carefully maintained
no duplicates
no quick draws
no games less than 30 moves

has
1. e3 (38721 games) @ 49.0 win%
and
1. e4 (749226 games) @ 56.0 win%

that's good enough for me

[fen]1nb1kbn1/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQ - 0 1 [/fen]

So how much games with the start position above does your 15 M games database contain?

What about first reading a thread before replying into the blue? sigh...

You're suggesting that it's possible that 1. e4 has a lower win% than 1. e3 when the opponent has even less material than normal?
Sorry not buying that...it's ridiculous to suggest.

You still cannot read, I maintained/suggested nothing except that your database is of no value in this thread,
because you missed, what the thread is about. No handwaving will cure this.

Just a typical 'Crawford' post. Try again when you have 15M games with the relevant position.

If 1.e4 is significantly better than 1.e3 in the standard opening position, then it's even better (or the same) if the opponent is down a huge amount of material. Can you not understand that?

[fen]1nb1kbn1/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQ - 0 1 [/fen]
1. e4?

btw. it's not proven that e4 is the best move in the standard startpos