Originally posted by greenpawn34A hypothetical example using your method.
All 20 legal moves are displayed with the % of wins, losses and draws.
To start favouring 1.e4 over 1.Na3 just because players have chosen that
as the first move the most times is misleading.
Following that path you will have to see all the 1...e5 replies and all the 1..e6
games and before you know where you are you have over I million
fraction of a % to work with.
I play 100 games as White.
I play 90 of those 100 games by starting with 1.e4 and win all 90 games. (100% )
I play 10 of those 100 games by starting with 1.h4 and lose all 10 games. (0% )
Using your method, my winning percentage is (100 + 0)/2 = 50% .
But I actually won 90 out of 100 games. (My real winning percentage is really 90% )
Originally posted by greenpawn34OK, forget the 16 moves. The only reason I mentioned it was that using your method, you'd have to divide by 16 instead of 20.
Oh I see - you said 16 moves.
So yes according to that selective DB of master games Black does better.
I can show you other master DB that have White doing better.
However in this case we are talking about a closed DB here on good old RHP
so comparing the 1400 DB to a DB of master games is not really fair.
I was really just making a joke here, trying to point out that if you used your flawed methodology, the masters end up making more blunders than the patzers.
Originally posted by greenpawn34let's say there's only 2 legal opening moves:
So what if 1.a3 is played less than 1.e4.
1.a3, which has been played 10 games, with a result of 10 losses. win% = 0.
1.e4 has been played a 100 000 games, resulting to a 100 000 wins. no draws, no losses. win% = 100%.
your way of counting: (0% + 100% )/2 = 50%. according to this white won only half of the games in the database.
see the slight problem in the result?
Originally posted by Mad Rookhah, the mental twins strike again! 😀
A hypothetical example using your method.
I play 100 games as White.
I play 90 of those 100 games by starting with 1.e4 and win all 90 games. (100% )
I play 10 of those 100 games by starting with 1.h4 and lose all 10 games. (0% )
Using your method, my winning percentage is (100 + 0)/2 = 50% .
But I actually won 90 out of 100 games. (My real winning percentage is really 90% )
Hi WW.
"let's say there's only 2 legal opening moves."
And now the very rules of the game are being changed in a forlorn effort
to juggle the figures.
You are not going to win this debate by fudging.
Let us stick to the facts. There are 20 legal moves in the opening and we
are talking about the 1400 DB.
This is the formula used to determine the 54% on master games:
Score = 100* WS/(WS+BS)
where WS = (WW+WD/2)/WG and
BS = (BW+BD/2)/BG
BG, BW, BD are black games, wins and draws, and
WG, WW, WD are white games, wins and draws. You can get this info from the "Your performance" page on "My Home".
Interestingly, when I apply it to my games, I get 56%. Does this mean I'm better at converting the first move advantage than the masters? Nope, it just means I need to rethink my black openings. (Or, if I listen to GP, it means that players below master level are all crappy at defending). In my case, I think GP definitely has a point.
Originally posted by Mad RookAnother example of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess#Winning_percentages
Adorján found that at ratings 2700 (elo) and above, White scored 55.7% overall. And at ratings below 2100, White scored 53.1% overall. And for rank beginners, there was almost no difference.
So there is a slight positive correlation between players' rating and White's winning percentage.