Does white have an slight advantage over black?

Originally posted by Mad Rook
That's what I thought... You can't do that, Geoff. It has to be a weighted average. 🙂

(Lies, damn lies, and statistics)

You are right about a need for a weighted average but a bigger question is whether the result of any analysis of RHP historical results can help answer the question being asked.

While chess is a game of perfect information in information-theory terms, actual games are played by imperfect humans or human-made imperfect machines. We all have experience with blunders by ourselves and/or our opponents. We know that many of our completed chess games contain at least one suboptimal move, that is, where a better move was available, and where the suboptimal move either was, or could have been, exploited to achieve a theoretically win or to salvage a draw from a lost game. In some games, the bad move is very hard to detect, but we tend to believe one was made. At least one.

Why should any such game be counted in answering the question that was asked?
If we rely on historical results, the games that should be counted are the games in which the optimal (best available) move was made at that point in the game when the suboptimal move was made. In fact, the games that should be counted are the games in which the optimal move was made at every point in the game, by both sides.

This selection criterion is impossible to apply because it requires proving a negative: "There is no suboptimal move in this game." Also, it suggests that there may be only one completely optimal game! In that case, the outcome will prove that there is either an overwhelming advantage for W or B if one side wins, or no advantage, if it is a draw.

Originally posted by JS357
You are right about a need for a weighted average but a bigger question is whether the result of any analysis of RHP historical results can help answer the question being asked.

While chess is a game of perfect information in information-theory terms, actual games are played by imperfect humans or human-made imperfect machines. We all have experience with ...[text shortened]... ither an overwhelming advantage for W or B if one side wins, or no advantage, if it is a draw.

OK, I could try to get into a long-winded theoretical discussion, but I might not have the knowledge or patience to keep up the pace of the discussion. So how about we just change the question to "Does white have a slight advantage over black in the real world? "

We have a probable cause to explain the historically better performance of White (first-move advantage conferring the initiative). And we have the statistical results of millions of games played in the past. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. 🙂

Indeed, we have already had a thread about whether in a "perfect game" white has an advantage.

In the context of this question we have to assume we are talking about players on this site, and hence the stats on the database are the most relevant data. On this data it appears that white does have a slight advantage, and that this advantage increases as the players skill increases.

As an aside, does anyone know whether the best computer algorithms win more with white?

Thanks JS357

That is what I was trying to say with.

"You cannot apply your weighted thing (what ever that means) to this equation.
These are people you are talking about, human beings not apples. "

You put it so much better than me.

How about this attempt to answer the question.

Now we all know that the quickest checkmate is varitions of fools mate.
2 moves for Black and 3 moves White.

So by looking at three move games that end in a mate we have a
beginning and an end.

On the RHP 1400 database there are 25 mates in 3 moves.

21 wins for Black and 4 for White. This is a fact.

So if a player in the 1400 database is going to get mated in three moves
the chances are it will be the White player.

Does white have an slight advantage over black?

In games that end in a 3 move checkmates the answer is no.

As my new friend JS357 points out looking any further than 3 moves
is not correct because then muliple negatives come into consideration.

Team js357 & greenpawn: 1 the bottom feeders: 0 😏

As a ballpark answer.
It does not matter at the low levels who has White or Black.
You could argue that White is at a disadvatage because he will blunder
that one move quicker than Black. 😉

Originally posted by Mad Rook
OK, I could try to get into a long-winded theoretical discussion, but I might not have the knowledge or patience to keep up the pace of the discussion. So how about we just change the question to "Does white have a slight advantage over black in the real world? "

We have a probable cause to explain the historically better performance of White (first-move ...[text shortened]... played in the past. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. 🙂

Well I have to admit that in a betting situation in the absence of any other information I'd go for white. So, you are right on that. But maybe there's some Mad Rook Gambit yet to be discovered that defeats a heretofore winning white opening and changes the statistics over time...until someone solves that gambit, etc. etc. Let's hope chess is that complicated, and it's not, let's add complications.

Like; White can decline to move first. Black can then decline. Claiming a draw by 3x repetition is possible. I think that would be a good rule change.

Originally posted by Mad Rook
OK, I could try to get into a long-winded theoretical discussion, but I might not have the knowledge or patience to keep up the pace of the discussion. So how about we just change the question to "Does white have a slight advantage over black in the real world? "

We have a probable cause to explain the historically better performance of White (first-move ...[text shortened]... played in the past. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. 🙂

QUACK QAUCK

*waddles*

QUACK QUACK

*waddles*

my most valuable contribution to the discussion

toet.

Originally posted by Willzzz
Indeed, we have already had a thread about whether in a "perfect game" white has an advantage.

In the context of this question we have to assume we are talking about players on this site, and hence the stats on the database are the most relevant data. On this data it appears that white does have a slight advantage, and that this advantage increases as the ...[text shortened]... es.

As an aside, does anyone know whether the best computer algorithms win more with white?

There is some discussion at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess

"Chess Engines Grand Tournament (CEGT) tests computer chess engines by playing them against each other, with time controls of forty moves in one hundred and twenty minutes per player (40/120), and also 40/20 and 40/4, and uses the results of those games to compile a rating list for each time control. At the slowest time control (40/120), White has scored 55.4% (W34.7 D41.3 L24.0) in games played among 38 of the strongest chess engines (as of May 27, 2009).[19] At 40/20, White has scored 54.6% (W37.0 D35.2 L27.8) in games played among 284 engines (as of May 24, 2009).[20] At the fastest time control (40/4), White has scored 54.8% (W39.6 D30.5 L30.0), in games played among 128 programs (as of May 28, 2009).[21]"

But it may be that this indicates merely that chess engines are programmed to think like humans.

Hmm that's interesting, it does seem that the higher the rating, the bigger a first move advantage white enjoys. This perhaps suggests that the "perfect game" would be a win for white.

Originally posted by m00nshine
As the title says :.

Tried to search for similar threads but couldn't find any.

So, whats your opinion? Since technically white has an whole extra move, and logic tells me, if white keeps the initiative, he can make most with the extra move.

Yes. 😉