user12402: I've been told (but I don't understand) that it's a good idea to use a number of chess engine to analyze a chess opening.  It this true?  Why is this a good idea?)

user7473: Chess engines use heuristics, i.e. they look at a position several moves ahead, and quantitatively evaluate the position using some criteria (the most straightforward example is to just count the pawns and pieces). The move that leads to the position with the highest score, assuming best play (according to the engine's heuristics) from both sides is the engine's best move.
So the evaluation of the position depends on the choice of heuristics. Different types of positions are best described by different heuristics. Different engines use different heuristics. Therefore, in an opening where several types of positions could arise, different engines may have different opinions on what the best move is. (I haven't tried this myself, but I'd bet the top 5 chess engines won't agree on 1.e4, 1.d4 or 1.c4)

12402: <p>I've been told (but I don't understand) that it's a good idea to use a number of chess engine to analyze a chess opening.  It this true?  Why is this a good idea?)</p>
 7473: <p>Chess engines use heuristics, i.e. they look at a position several moves ahead, and quantitatively evaluate the position using some criteria (the most straightforward example is to just count the pawns and pieces). The move that leads to the position with the highest score, assuming best play (according to the engine's heuristics) from both sides is the engine's best move.</p>

<p>So the evaluation of the position depends on the choice of heuristics. Different types of positions are best described by different heuristics. Different engines use different heuristics. Therefore, in an opening where several types of positions could arise, different engines may have different opinions on what the best move is. (I haven't tried this myself, but I'd bet the top 5 chess engines won't agree on 1.e4, 1.d4 or 1.c4)</p>
