1...e5 is better than 1...e6 and 1...c5, prove me wrong

"1...e5 is better than 1...e6 in every single way."

No, the downside of e5 compared to e6 is that you can't play e6 anymore.

For instance Bc4 is weaker against e6 than it is against e5.

@Butcher_Of_Truth said in #20:
> Rating: 984.90. Megagon is better than 10.6% of Blitz players.
> Progression over the last 12 games: 52. Rating deviation: 81.99.
ummm, my bullet is way better than yours, and i could still beat you

Winning is better than losing. Prove me wrong

If we select "Show threat" in lichess.org/analysis
We will see "1. ... e5" is the top engine choice, but it's assuming the lines are perfect, but they I think they are not. If you do it on your computer and copy past the number in a post you might discover there are different lines. What bugged me the most (feature request) is having to add the spaces before the "#." and then added another space to separated the moves, just to show you all the results my old weak computer gives:

-0.4
Show threat
Depth 22/22, 459k nodes/s

-0.4 1...e5 2.e3 d5 3.d4 Nd7 4.c4 Ngf6 5.cxd5 exd4 6.Qxd4 Bc5 7.Qd1 O-O 8.a3 Nb6 9.Nc3
-0.4 1...Nf6 2.d4 d5 3.e3 c5 4.dxc5 e6 5.a3 Bxc5 6.Nf3 O-O 7.c4 Bb6 8.b4 a5 9.c5
-0.3 1...c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.c3 Nf6 4.d4 d5 5.Bf4 Nc6 6.e3N h5 7.dxc5 Nxf4 8.exf4 e6 9.Nbd2
-0.2 1...d5 2.Nf3 c5 3.e3 Nf6 4.d4 Nc6 5.dxc5 e5 6.Bb5 Bg4 7.c4 Bxc5 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Qa4
-0.2 1...g6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.c4 O-O 5.e3 d5 6.cxd5 Nxd5 7.e4 Nf6 8.Nc3 c5 9.d5

What if we ignore the highest black threat and worry about it a few moves later, does 1. ... e5 really have that much of an impact? I though it was more important to survive the first half of the game, so that the last half can avoid a lost game.

What if, the best moves from white are not always played by white, but black persists to play only best moves. Will 1. ... e5 still have the same end game results?

The beginning of the end of phases, by-the-numbers. Most will say the game has 3 phases, but I see it more like 6 or 2 parts. There is a beginning and an end to each phase. That would be a total of 6 parts to the phases. If we really want to minimize the phase story. There are only two in-between phases to be concerned about. That's the opening (P1+P2) and the ending (P2+P3) phases. So the middle game is really split a part between the opening and the ending.

@Toscani said in #24:
> If we select "Show threat" in lichess.org/analysis

I think the "show threat" thing just assume white does not move and show the best move for black in the position. Therefore, it's not surprising that it gives the mirror of 1. e4.

The 1... means any move...

Many moves could not be included in the study, because they will be played in the PV line analysed.
So there is only 13 possible first moves for the 1...e5 Show threat analysis.
1...e5 2.e3 d5 3.d4 Nd7 4.c4 Ngf6 5.cxd5 exd4 6.Qxd4 Bc5 7.Qd1 O-O 8.a3 Nb6 9.Nc3

lichess.org/study/0wP5HYMU/LdNloyUo

@Sarg0n said in #8:
> Sicilian according to Stean, Simple Chess, 1978 or something like that:
>
> Minority attacks derive from the Pawn structure, Pawn structures derive from the opening. Go back to the eras of Capablanca and Alekhine and you will see Queen's Gambits, hoards of them, with hoards of minority attacks descending from them. Nowadays [1978; still relevant] the Sicilian Defense is all the rage. Sicilians here, Sicilians there, Sicilians absolutely everywhere. Why this saturation with Sicilians? Does the Mafia's influence really extend this far? The answer lies in the minority attack. The whole idea of the Sicilian is for Black to trade his c Pawn for the d Pawn. White almost invariably obliges: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 (or d6 or e6 or g6) 3.d4 cxd4, when Black immediately arrives at a minority attack Pawn structure. Half-open c file, extra central pawn, 2-3 minority on the Queenside; these are all the necessary ingredients. Sounds infallible, so where's the snag? Why doesn't Black win every game? The problem is of course that White has a lead in development in the early stages, which may prove difficult to survive. Black's prospects lie later in the game when the winds of White's initiative have blown themselves out."
> The structural weaknesses White accepts because he is trying to avoid Black's plan to launch a minority attack to get a winning endgame and must attack. They are not the cause of Black having winning endgames (otherwise White wouldn't weaken his position in such a way); merely they are a symptom of him having to attack the Black King. The root cause of this is the minority attack, and this is why most Sicilian endgames are winning for him. The minority attack is also a theme in any Rook endgames, so it's not just a late middlegame idea.

Did you actually manage to remember all of that or really put in the effort to type all that off of a book? Both very impressive.

As we see in the updated post #26. The depth stops at 22 and the line stops at a depth of 9.
Only 13 possible move lines was available to prove that 1. ...e5 was best.

What if, the analyse goes deeper, will it narrow down the first moves for white to less than 13.
I think so, but will the lichess analysis present more than 9 moves? What's it's limit?

things are some much more rationally arguable in endgames. (not just the ones that are known wins).

@Megagon said in #16:
> and thats not what i meant by "hes back at it again"

that a fact?