#1 How does playing white more often come even close to engine cheating? Playing white is like a 0.15 advantage at very most and engine cheating almost guarantees winning every game. Engine cheating is like a +15 from the opening. Would you compare +0.15 and +15?
How would this make chess sexier?
I win as Black more often, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
When I was learning to play in 2019, nobody would play with me OTB, so I just played myself. In my first 45 games against myself — by definition, there could be no more evenly matched opponent — I won 25 of those games as Black, 12 as White, and 8 were draws. 🤷 Make what you will of this, but at least it casts doubt on your assumption that White is likelier to win.
And that’s when both players’ repertoire is exactly the same. Whereas if Black’s preferred opening differs from White’s, it’s likely White will run into trouble first. This is because, more often than not, Black chooses the actual opening. And it seems to me that this choice of how to respond to White’s early commitment is more significant than moving first, which is really just a gamble. When you move, you commit to a plan. Even White’s most common opening moves can be met with many different countermoves (and it would be quite the task for the player with White to familiarize himself equally with all of them); so I’m unpersuaded that moving first is advantageous. It seems to me that moving second is the safer bet, if only because the game is likelier to conform to Black’s plan than White’s.
Take the Sicilian for a basic example. As soon as Black plays c5 in response to e4, some kind of Sicilian is already on board. If you have White and you’re not familiar with that opening, you’re screwed. Of course the Sicilian is very popular; even so, there are many variations which Black can steer the game into. It’s complex territory — and it’s Black’s decision whether to go there at all. White has pretty much no say in the matter. (You can’t really “decline” the Sicilian the way you might a gambit.) With less common openings, this disparity only increases, again in Black’s favor, as it’s less likely that White will know the moves.
Finally, you mention “most experts,” yet do not cite even one source. Please do. I not only doubt that your assumption is correct, I also doubt that there are any “experts” on this subject in the world right now. (Chess hasn’t been solved yet; and when it is, the probability is very high that it will turn out to be fundamentally a draw.) In other words: I not only question your premise, I also question whether the alleged consensus behind it is even possible at this juncture. And again, as my own experience contradicts your hypothesis, to take you seriously I will require extensive proof. Are you prepared to furnish any?
I am skeptical by nature, but also patient. 🙂 Please take the time to research this matter carefully, then get back to me. In the meantime, my money is on Black FTW. 😎 (In fact it’s a matter of indifference to me which color I get. Nevertheless, were I forced to pick one, I would usually choose Black, for the aforementioned reasons. I don’t want to go first! You go — then I’ll make you regret your move. 😛)
PS: It’s also been established that engines do not properly evaluate some openings. (The KID being perhaps the most famous example.) The currently perceived slight advantage for White right out of the gate may be entirely due to a mistake in the way early positions are calculated. Engines of the future may give a different impression. Like moving first, having more space is arguably a weakness, not a strength. White may be forced to play defensively in the center, while Black attacks from the flank; and it’s usually easier to attack than to defend. Cf. lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/moves-are-unsound-marked-as-inaccuracies-in-analysis#4
When I was learning to play in 2019, nobody would play with me OTB, so I just played myself. In my first 45 games against myself — by definition, there could be no more evenly matched opponent — I won 25 of those games as Black, 12 as White, and 8 were draws. 🤷 Make what you will of this, but at least it casts doubt on your assumption that White is likelier to win.
And that’s when both players’ repertoire is exactly the same. Whereas if Black’s preferred opening differs from White’s, it’s likely White will run into trouble first. This is because, more often than not, Black chooses the actual opening. And it seems to me that this choice of how to respond to White’s early commitment is more significant than moving first, which is really just a gamble. When you move, you commit to a plan. Even White’s most common opening moves can be met with many different countermoves (and it would be quite the task for the player with White to familiarize himself equally with all of them); so I’m unpersuaded that moving first is advantageous. It seems to me that moving second is the safer bet, if only because the game is likelier to conform to Black’s plan than White’s.
Take the Sicilian for a basic example. As soon as Black plays c5 in response to e4, some kind of Sicilian is already on board. If you have White and you’re not familiar with that opening, you’re screwed. Of course the Sicilian is very popular; even so, there are many variations which Black can steer the game into. It’s complex territory — and it’s Black’s decision whether to go there at all. White has pretty much no say in the matter. (You can’t really “decline” the Sicilian the way you might a gambit.) With less common openings, this disparity only increases, again in Black’s favor, as it’s less likely that White will know the moves.
Finally, you mention “most experts,” yet do not cite even one source. Please do. I not only doubt that your assumption is correct, I also doubt that there are any “experts” on this subject in the world right now. (Chess hasn’t been solved yet; and when it is, the probability is very high that it will turn out to be fundamentally a draw.) In other words: I not only question your premise, I also question whether the alleged consensus behind it is even possible at this juncture. And again, as my own experience contradicts your hypothesis, to take you seriously I will require extensive proof. Are you prepared to furnish any?
I am skeptical by nature, but also patient. 🙂 Please take the time to research this matter carefully, then get back to me. In the meantime, my money is on Black FTW. 😎 (In fact it’s a matter of indifference to me which color I get. Nevertheless, were I forced to pick one, I would usually choose Black, for the aforementioned reasons. I don’t want to go first! You go — then I’ll make you regret your move. 😛)
PS: It’s also been established that engines do not properly evaluate some openings. (The KID being perhaps the most famous example.) The currently perceived slight advantage for White right out of the gate may be entirely due to a mistake in the way early positions are calculated. Engines of the future may give a different impression. Like moving first, having more space is arguably a weakness, not a strength. White may be forced to play defensively in the center, while Black attacks from the flank; and it’s usually easier to attack than to defend. Cf. lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/moves-are-unsound-marked-as-inaccuracies-in-analysis#4
@juliegirl1999 play atomic and we can talk again.
White is likely to be ahead by a 0.5 in the start , so now just start making engine moves and game will end up a Draw .
Conclusion ( my opinion ) -- 0.5 is not a win for white , it's a more likely draw
Conclusion ( my opinion ) -- 0.5 is not a win for white , it's a more likely draw
this should be in off topic/general chess discussion
#10 "You cannot choose your colour for a rated game but for casual yes."
You can't? I just played 3 rated games where I chose to have black each game because of what I was doing. You can choose black every game, white every game or alternate when you create a game.
You can't? I just played 3 rated games where I chose to have black each game because of what I was doing. You can choose black every game, white every game or alternate when you create a game.
Some believe white's advantage is purely psychological and has been ingrained in us over the years. Whether white has an advantage or not it would be fairer if everyone played both colours. However I am not sure it would make the ratings all that more accurate. Unless one could prove single colour players where continually out preforming their potential long-term, the margin of error in the ratings is not significant, since the ratings are relative to the player base not an absolute number defining one's skill outright.
Want to make it clear, if players wish to continue playing in regular games, that is acceptable. At the same time, I think Series would be fun. I like having the ability to play people multiple games. As for the people arguing that white does not have an advantage en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess#:~:text=In%20chess%2C%20there%20is%20a,between%2052%20and%2056%20percent
Lot of people are giving their opinion about a subject they haven't researched. If you really think White doesn't have an advantage you are disagreeing with many of the greatest Grandmasters of all time. (read the article I've attached above)
Lot of people are giving their opinion about a subject they haven't researched. If you really think White doesn't have an advantage you are disagreeing with many of the greatest Grandmasters of all time. (read the article I've attached above)
@pawnedge You are assuming my primary goal is to get better at chess. It ISN'T my goal is to have fun playing and winning games. I applaud your chess journey, but chess isn't my biggest pursuit in life. I like to play 2-3 games in a row with the same person, and when I lose to them, I like to see if I can combat their tactics.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.