Is the Barnes f3 or Grob g4 a worse opening

i wondered because these two are the main worse openings but which one is really worse

grob is worse eval I think

This is one case in which engine evaluations might not reflect practical prospects especially well.

The Grob might (or might not) be objectively bad, but does have the merits of having a clear strategic point and forcing the opponent to play sharply. If an opponent just bimbles along, either the Pawn advance or the h1-a8 diagnonal fianchetto might well give White good play. Even "if" it's objectively bad; and I do not seek to "take a side" in the argument between the Grob-haters and the Macho Grobniks; one can see it has some point.

If the Barnes Opening has any point apart from that of throwing one's opponent out of his or her opening preparation, that point eludes me. And the opponent does not necessarily need to play with a great deal of sharp accuracy in order to get a decent game.

So I personally would tend to feel that the Barnes is worse; but I guess it all depends on one's point of view. I suppose it could be argued with equal validity 'in the other direction' that the Barnes is a "safer" opening than the Grob.

100% this.

f3. White has to punish the grob quickly if they don’t punish it immediately white will equalize. f3 has a 42% win rate for white in lichess database but grob is 48%

Doesnt mean that the grob is better

you can turn the Barnes into a Wrong cloud so I'd say that the grob is worse

Although the Wrongcloud currently scores well, I personally believe that it comes in for the same sort of criticism as the Barnes itself. Maybe I'm missing the point though.

Grob:

- Develops a piece

- Tries to get an attack somewhere (not a good spot, but still)

- Doesn't weaken the kingside too badly

- Is considered a book move by the evaluation

Barnes:

- Not only does not develop any piece, but outright hinders development

- Doesn't even try to launch an attack

- Drastically weakens the kingside

- Is the only first move considered a mistake by the evaluation

It's pretty obvious, I think.

At least the Grob is tricky if the opponent does not know what to do(Grob Gambit), but what the hell are you supposed to do after f3? You just put up a roadblock in front of your own path, at least the Grob develops something!

As farcical as it may sound you could make an argument for the grob being like a benoni or king's Indian in that while white may be in some sense 'worse' compared to the Barnes, his compensation is having a better chance at winning while with the Barnes your aim has to be to get a draw.

Note that "objectively" means free from your own biases and wishes, it doesn't really mean "when played at the very highest level", even though it might sometimes be used that way, because if you want to use it like that then all typical openings are "objectively" equal since they all lead to a draw.

you should read post #3 again which sums it up well, as it depends what you mean by ‘better’ (or probably in this case less bad)

Objective evaluation and practical effectiveness aren’t not necessarily the same thing. To summarise:

Grob: probably ‘worse’ but black has to react concretely

Barnes: still bad, but a bit less weakening but giving black a wide range of good options with very few chances for Black to go immediately wrong.

You forgot grob gives -1.12 to black. And book move doesnt mean its better but i bit of agree this because barnes doesnt lead to anything but nobody forced black to play d5 after g4 they also respond with e5 now no any trap doesnt work weakens your kinside by grob

A proper book move will always mean more than a computer evaluation.

"-1.12 to black" doesn't mean anything.