It's almost universally acknowledged that, given opponents of equal strength, white begins the game with an advantage, which black must struggle to neutralise in the opening. Should this not be recognised in the rating system? Should not there be some sort of bonus for winning as black, and a corresponding penalty for losing as white?
Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this...
yes white does have the advantage as far as the opening goes. but then again, even if a driver starts a race at the back of the pack and wins, he gets the same points for winning. No I dont think black should get a bonus. as nice as it would be when i was black and i won, it still has no bearing on the game. the game is decided in how you play, not who plays first.
I think it is complete nonsense that black is worse than white.A bit of proof for this bold statement is my performance on this site.As white I have 72 wins,8 draws and 20 losses,as black 72 wins,27 draws and 29 losses.If you prefer proof of a higher level,check out this page http://www.gmsquare.com/BlackisOKAdorjan.html
BLACK IS OK!
the rating system need not reflect this since everyone faces the same issue...any adjustment would affect all ratings the same way...otherwise it wouldn't make any sense.
this assumes people play black the same proportion, which is generally true in game play which is tied to official rating systems
Originally posted by hypermo2001but this assumption need not hold at RHP. someone could easily manipulate things so they only play games as white, for example. i'm not particularly worried by this, I just thought it would be nice for the feat of winning as black to get some extra recognition.
this assumes people play black the same proportion, which is generally true in game play which is tied to official rating systems
On that topic, I maintain in the face of comments by others that, for the majority of those who could be considered competent in the opening, an advantage IS inherent in white's having the first move. I don't have time right now to go into this, but if it is of interest to anyone' I'll be happy to debate it...
When you do win as black you do get extra recognition. In chess books, whenever they talk bout important games theyll say "whats his face" playing as black. when that person wins, it seems great. at the same time, they won because they were good, not because they were playing as black. personally i like black, you get to see what ur opponent is gonna do and move accordingly. theres advantages and disadvantages to both.
Statistics will show something in the range of:
white wins 35% to 40%;
draws 35 to 40%;
black wins 20% to 30%;
giving white an average score of around 55% and black 45%. This is more or less the same for the major openings (1.e4 1.d4 1.c4 1.Nf3).
The question is whether this is an objective reflection of the chances for both sides, or the result of a 'self-fulfilling prophecy' whereby white players tend to aim for a win and black players tend to aim for a draw because of these statistics. And that influences the playing style.
What seems objective to me is that white has the first chance to take the initiative. But initiative and advantage are two different things. Like in football, counter-attacks can be very dangerous!
Wasn't there the joke that white is worse at the beginning of a game because he is in zugzwang?
I lose because I made bad moves . I do not lose because I am playing black. I play black most of the time. I do not fear white. I do fear better players. Black needs no bonus. I do however like a bonus for a draw vs. a higher rated player too force a player to try to play for a win.