What Do The Engines Say? 7. Dutch

MODERN computer programs are revolutionising how we approach openings.

This first became noticeable when supposedly refuted moves started making a comeback as engines showed resources that had evaded the world's top players.

But more recently, as engines grow in strength, there has been a trend in the opposite direction, at least at the highest level.

Grandmaster Nigel Davies summed this up in a post at chesspublishing.com, where he recounted a conversation with Canadian GM Kevin Spraggett, who "opined to me that ancient openings are making a comeback because engines are finding flaws in the more risky ones."

Davies added: "I think there is a lot of truth in this, which is confirmed by the migration of top players to strictly classical openings."

Engines are still far from the stage of knowing all there is too known about openings.

Their play in that stage of the game is not on a par with their abilities in tactical middlegames.

We cannot expect engines to tell us move-by-move how to play our favourite opening variations,

But their opinions on what we should be looking at - the moves that show the most promise - are certainly well worth considering.

So in this series I will be looking at what the engines say about mainline opening positions.

THE pure Dutch 1.d4 f5 is the opening about which a world champion supposedly quipped: "If your opponent wants to play the Dutch, you shouldn't try to stop him."

Those words, or something like them, are usually attributed to Tigran Petrosian, although I have already seen them put in the unlikely mouth of Mikhail Botvinnik (unlikely because for many years he was the Dutch Defence's leading exponent).

Stockfish17 recommends continuing with the fashionable 2.Bg5!?, while Dragon1 prefers the traditional responses of 2.c4 and 2.g3.

Often these days the Dutch arises after Black first plays 1...e6, and White avoids a transposition to the French with 2.e4.

Following 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 the engines fluctuate between 3.g3, 3.Nc3 and 3.Nf3.

After 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 Stockfish17 is for quite some time torn between 3.g3 and 3.c4, but comes to agree with Dragon1 that the real choice is between 3.c4 and 3.Bf4, with both engines marginally preferring the latter.

What Do The Engines Say? 6. Spanish

MODERN computer programs are revolutionising how we approach openings.

This first became noticeable when supposedly refuted moves started making a comeback as engines showed resources that had evaded the world's top players.

But more recently, as engines grow in strength, there has been a trend in the opposite direction, at least at the highest level.

Grandmaster Nigel Davies summed this up in a post at chesspublishing.com, where he recounted a conversation with Canadian GM Kevin Spraggett, who "opined to me that ancient openings are making a comeback because engines are finding flaws in the more risky ones."

Davies added: "I think there is a lot of truth in this, which is confirmed by the migration of top players to strictly classical openings."

Engines are still far from the stage of knowing all there is too known about openings.

Their play in that stage of the game is not on a par with their abilities in tactical middlegames.

We cannot expect engines to tell us move-by-move how to play our favourite opening variations,

But their opinions on what we should be looking at - the moves that show the most promise - are certainly well worth considering.

So in this series I will be looking at what the engines say about mainline opening positions.

THE Ruy Lopez, aka the Spanish Torture, is a perennial White favourite.

Traditionally the main reply to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 has been 3...a6, which used to be called Morphy's Variation in deference to Paul Morphy.

But Stockfish17 and Dragon1 prefer the Berlin Defence, ie 3...Nf6, which may explain why it is so popular at elite level.

Anyone looking for something more offbeat might want to consider Cozio's 3...Nge7, which for a long time is Dragon1's second choice.

What Do The Engines Say? 5. Jobava-Prié

MODERN computer programs are revolutionising how we approach openings.

This first became noticeable when supposedly refuted moves started making a comeback as engines showed resources that had evaded the world's top players.

But more recently, as engines grow in strength, there has been a trend in the opposite direction, at least at the highest level.

Grandmaster Nigel Davies summed this up in a post at chesspublishing.com, where he recounted a conversation with Canadian GM Kevin Spraggett, who "opined to me that ancient openings are making a comeback because engines are finding flaws in the more risky ones."

Davies added: "I think there is a lot of truth in this, which is confirmed by the migration of top players to strictly classical openings."

Engines are still far from the stage of knowing all there is too known about openings.

Their play in that stage of the game is not on a par with their abilities in tactical middlegames.

We cannot expect engines to tell us move-by-move how to play our favourite opening variations,

But their opinions on what we should be looking at - the moves that show the most promise - are certainly well worth considering.

So in this series I will be looking at what the engines say about mainline opening positions.

The fashionable Jobava-Prié usually starts 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bf4, or 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bf4.

Starting point of the Jobava-Prié

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****
The main continuation in ChessBase's 2025 Mega database is 4...e6, and that is Stockfish17's recommendation.

White's most popular reply to that is 4.Nb5, which worries a lot of club players.

Then 4...Na6 is usually met by 5.e3, when Stockfish17 suggests completing kingside development with 5...Be7 and 5...0-0, before repelling the advanced white knight with 6...c6.

Dragon1 takes a different approach, marginally preferring the aggressive 4...c5!?

Black should not then fear 5.Nb5? as 5...Qa5+ 6.Nc3 cxd4 7.Qxd4 Nc6 leaves White in big trouble.

Better, but still not good, is 5.dxc5?! as Black has 5...d4.

In practice whites have usually gone for either the conventional 5.e3, when Dragon1 reckons both 5...a6!? and 5...Qa5!? give complete equality, or the sharp 5.e4!?

After the latte, both engines reckon Black is fine, but they fluctuate between 5...Nxe4 and 5...cxd4, while agreeing that the third-most popular move in Mega25, 5...dxe4!?, allows White a tiny edge.

What Do The Engines Say? 4. New London

MODERN computer programs are revolutionising how we approach openings.

This first became noticeable when supposedly refuted moves started making a comeback as engines showed resources that had evaded the world's top players.

But more recently, as engines grow in strength, there has been a trend in the opposite direction, at least at the highest level.

Grandmaster Nigel Davies summed this up in a post at chesspublishing.com, where he recounted a conversation with Canadian GM Kevin Spraggett, who "opined to me that ancient openings are making a comeback because engines are finding flaws in the more risky ones."

Davies added: "I think there is a lot of truth in this, which is confirmed by the migration of top players to strictly classical openings."

Engines are still far from the stage of knowing all there is too known about openings.

Their play in that stage of the game is not on a par with their abilities in tactical middlegames.

We cannot expect engines to tell us move-by-move how to play our favourite opening variations,

But their opinions on what we should be looking at - the moves that show the most promise - are certainly well worth considering.

So in this series I will be looking at what the engines say about mainline opening positions.

After 1.d4 Nf6, and after 1.d4 d5, the London System, 2.Nf3 and 3.Bf4, has been refined by the introduction of the New London, ie 2.Bf4.

This may be played with a mind to switching to the Jobava-Prié, which usually starts 1.d4, 2.Nc3 and then 3.Bf4, but more often the game stays within the bounds of a genuine London System.

After 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Stockfish17 and Dragon1 for a while fluctuate about how to respond, but come to settle on the aggressive 2...c5!?, marginally ahead of the conventional 2...Nf6.

After 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 the engines like both 2...e6 and 2...d5, perhaps very marginally preferring the latter. If then 3.e3, which the engines seem to think best, there is a divergence. Stockfish17 likes 3...e6 but Dragon1 suggests the aggressive 3...c5!?

What Do The Engines Say? 3. Sicilian Defence

MODERN computer programs are revolutionising how we approach openings.

This first became noticeable when supposedly refuted moves started making a comeback as engines showed resources that had evaded the world's top players.

But more recently, as engines grow in strength, there has been a trend in the opposite direction, at least at the highest level.

Grandmaster Nigel Davies summed this up in a post at chesspublishing.com, where he recounted a conversation with Canadian GM Kevin Spraggett, who "opined to me that ancient openings are making a comeback because engines are finding flaws in the more risky ones."

Davies added: "I think there is a lot of truth in this, which is confirmed by the migration of top players to strictly classical openings."

Engines are still far from the stage of knowing all there is too known about openings.

Their play in that stage of the game is not on a par with their abilities in tactical middlegames.

We cannot expect engines to tell us move-by-move how to play our favourite opening variations,

But their opinions on what we should be looking at - the moves that show the most promise - are certainly well worth considering.

So in this series I will be looking at what the engines say about mainline opening positions.

WOULDN'T it be great if engines were to tell us that the best way to play against the ever-popular Sicilian is, after all, one of those anti-Sicilians that authors of books tend to scorn (unless, of course, the whole idea of a book is to promote one such anti-Sicilian)?

Well, the engines do - up to a point.

Stockfish17 and Dragon1 at first favour meeting 1.e4 c5 with the conventional 2.Nf3, but 2.Nc3 is not far behind, and, given time, it takes over the No1 spot.

However, given more time, 2.Nf3 makes a comeback, while Dragon1 briefly flirts with 2.d4!?, albeit recommending meeting 2...cxd4 with 3.Nf3!?, which is how Paul Morphy liked to meet the Sicilian.

Nevertheless, for the human looking for an alternative to entering mainlines, the continuation 2.Nc3 comes with at least partial engine-approval.

What Do The Engines Say? 2. French Defence

MODERN computer programs are revolutionising how we approach openings.

This first became noticeable when supposedly refuted moves started making a comeback as engines showed resources that had evaded the world's top players.

But more recently, as engines grow in strength, there has been a trend in the opposite direction, at least at the highest level.

Grandmaster Nigel Davies summed this up in a post at chesspublishing.com, where he recounted a conversation with Canadian GM Kevin Spraggett, who "opined to me that ancient openings are making a comeback because engines are finding flaws in the more risky ones."

Davies added: "I think there is a lot of truth in this, which is confirmed by the migration of top players to strictly classical openings."

Engines are still far from the stage of knowing all there is too known about openings.

Their play in that stage of the game is not on a par with their abilities in tactical middlegames.

We cannot expect engines to tell us move-by-move how to play our favourite opening variations,

But their opinions on what we should be looking at - the moves that show the most promise - are certainly well worth considering.

So in this series I will be looking at what the engines say about mainline opening positions.

WHEN hot-favourite Gukesh Dommaraju sat down with the white pieces for the first game of the world championship match, he was probably not expecting the champion, Liren Ding, to play the French Defence.

Gukesh met 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 with 3.Nc3, and, when Ding replied 3...Nf6, continued with the Steinitz Variation, ie 4.e5.

Stockfish17 and Dragon1 fluctuate between 3.Nc3 and 3.e5 (the fashionable - after a long time in the doldrums - Advance Variation), but come to settle on the former, albeit marginally.

After 3...Nf6 Stockfish17 agrees with 4.e5, but Dragon1, although at first also preferring that move, comes to give the edge to the more popular 4.Bg5.

Both engines reckon their move gives White a slight edge, while claiming the other move leaves the game equal.

However, allow Dragon1 a lot more time to consider the position, and it too comes to prefer 4.e5, albeit marginally.

What Do The Engines Say? 1. Evans' Gambit

MODERN computer programs are revolutionising how we approach openings.

This first became noticeable when supposedly-refuted moves started making a comeback as engines showed resources that had evaded the world's top players.

But more recently, as engines grow in strength, there has been a trend in the opposite direction, at least at the highest level.

Grandmaster Nigel Davies summed this up in a post at chesspublishing.com, where he recounted a conversation with Canadian GM Kevin Spraggett, who "opined to me that ancient openings are making a comeback because engines are finding flaws in the more risky ones."

Davies added: "I think there is a lot of truth in this, which is confirmed by the migration of top players to strictly classical openings."

Engines are still far from the stage of knowing all there is to know about openings.

Their play in that stage of the game is not on a par with their abilities in tactical middlegames.

So we cannot expect engines to tell us move-by-move how to play our favourite opening variations,

But their advice on what we should be looking at - the moves that show the most promise - is certainly well worth considering.

So in this series I will be looking at what the engines say about mainline opening positions, starting with the Evans Gambit.

After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Stockfish17 and Dragon1 agree the pawn should be taken (with the bishop).

Position after Black takes the pawn

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

Dragon1 reckons White has fair compensation, although it believes White no longer has the advantage that comes with moving first, while Stockfish17 already gives Black a slight edge.

However, the situation is not clear, as is shown by the engines' reaction to White's follow-up, 5.c3.

Stockfish17 recommends looking at 5...Ba5, which is the main continuation in ChessBase's 2025 Mega database, but Dragon1 fluctuates between that and the second-most popular move, 5...Be7.

One thing the engines are agreed on, however, is that 5...Bc5, which used to be touted in books as roughly as good as 5...Ba5 (5...Be7 rarely got a look-in), helps White, with Stockfish17 claiming it leaves White slightly better (Dragon1 is not so sure).

Getting Better And Better

THE engines, that is, not necessarily me.

I have downloaded an updated version of the free engine Stockfish, called Stockfish16.1, and a newly available free version of Komodo, known as Dragon1.

Both are easily found on the internet, and are easy to download, and, all things considered, fairly easy to setup to analyse games in ChessBase (I happily use version 9.0 - so much cleaner and less cluttered than more-modern versions of the program).