On the 'advantage' of the first move.

~~robbie carrobie~~

Only Chess

16 Sep '13 10:04

~~robbie carrobie~~
Account suspended
Joined
26 Aug '07
Moves
38239
16 Sep '13 10:041 edit
What is the advantage of having the first move in chess? It appears to me to be nothing more than the ability to dictate the tempo of the game, for example after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 the pawns come into direct contact and black is essentially coerced to take measures to do something in the centre, thus white, through use of force, dictates the tempo of the game.

Its even more pronounced in king pawn games, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 and immediately blacks centre is under attack after which he has a few good ways to defend it 2...Nc6 directly or 2...Nf6 indirectly but that he is forced or coerced to defend it, is self evident and thus the advantage of the first move simply lies in the ability to dictate the tempo of the game.

Now time in chess is like energy in science, it can dissipate or be transformed into something else, like potential and kinetic energy. If one imagines a skier at the precipice of a hill as the skier descends the potential energy becomes kinetic, now in chess, it must be the same, the potential force or energy of the chess men gets released as the game progresses.

The question however remains, is it more or less advantageous to descend quickly down a sharp slope releasing the energy quickly or to descend gradually down a much larger hill eventually reaching the same speed in the end, thus it seems absurd to me to talk of the advantage of the first move, like saying how long is a piece of string.

If anyone can check this variation as to soundness, for i may be capable of rational thought, maybe not i would be pleased - regards robbie
SwissGambit
Caninus Interruptus
2014.05.01
Joined
11 Apr '07
Moves
92274
16 Sep '13 15:25
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What is the advantage of having the first move in chess? It appears to me to be nothing more than the ability to dictate the tempo of the game, for example after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 the pawns come into direct contact and black is essentially coerced to take measures to do something in the centre, thus white, through use of force, dictates the tempo of the ...[text shortened]... undness, for i may be capable of rational thought, maybe not i would be pleased - regards robbie
That's about it. White gets his choice of piece to move, which means he determines the course of the battle for the center.

It's not a large advantage. It probably makes no difference in actual results below master level.
~~robbie carrobie~~
Account suspended
Joined
26 Aug '07
Moves
38239
16 Sep '13 18:31
Originally posted by SwissGambit
That's about it. White gets his choice of piece to move, which means he determines the course of the battle for the center.

It's not a large advantage. It probably makes no difference in actual results below master level.
hmmm, thank you for confirming it, it has troubled me for some time -regards Robbie.
wolfgang59
Quiz Master
RHP Arms
Joined
09 Jun '07
Moves
48793
17 Sep '13 02:32
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
hmmm, thank you for confirming it, it has troubled me for some time -regards Robbie.
I can see why you are asking Robbie ... very impressive results you have with the black pieces.

I think most of us have stats that show a small advantage with white.
It's two-fold at our level.
1. The inherent advantage of getting in first.
2. Dictating the opening and getting opponent into unknown country.

~~robbie carrobie~~

Joined: 26 Aug '07
Moves: 38239

17 Sep '13 11:345 edits

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I can see why you are asking Robbie ... very impressive results you have with the black pieces.

I think most of us have stats that show a small advantage with white.
It's two-fold at our level.
1. The inherent advantage of getting in first.
2. Dictating the opening and getting opponent into unknown country.

Actually my stats are totally misleading wolfie, i play mostly my friends who usually always take white and they are 1200-1500 rated players and very rarely if ever do i lose against them, also with black i play the caro kann as it offers white practically no initiative to speak of at all, or none that i can discern, sure white gets a few tempi against the caro bishop, but it drives it where it wants to go anyway. whites extended pawns are supposed to be weak on the kingside going into an end game but i am finding that i am always having trouble with my f pawn, especially if i castle queenside, it always ends up backward. Here is my most recent loss,

Invert Board PGN Headers Comments

[Event "Clan challenge"] [Site "http://www.timeforchess.com"] [Date "2013.07.12"] [Round "-"] [White "Blundercity"] [Black "robbie carrobie"] [Result "1-0"] [BlackElo "1809"] [WhiteElo "1851"] [BlackRating "1809"] [EndDate "2013.09.14"] [WhiteRating "1851"]  1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.h4 {hum ho, life trundles along, nothing much to speak of} h6 {making a sanctuary square for the Caro Bishop} 7.Nf3 Nf6 {this move was once deemed impossible because of certain variations but it was found to be quite sound later.} 8.Ne5 {hum ho , row row row the boat gently down the stream, merrily merrily life is but a dream, is that knight really scary, nope!} Bh7 9.Bd3 Bxd3 {you can have my bad bishop baby! take it!} 10.Qxd3 {ok you can argue that white has a significant lead in development, but we have no weaknesses} e6 11.Bd2 {hmmm, this looked quite passive, one would think that f4 was the most active square but the bishop might get tempoed there} Nb8d7 12.f4 Qc7 13.O-O-O Nxe5 {this was a positionally terrible move, i was under no real compulsion to exchange and now i have problems with my f pawn} 14.dxe5 {wow , i thought this was a mistake, i would definitely have captured fxe and piled up on the f pawn, but hey, i am the loser, what do i know?} Nd5 15.Kb1 O-O-O 16.Qb3 Be7 17.Ne4 {I have a weakness on d6 which plagues me for the rest of the game, damn that square!} f6 18.exf6 gxf6 {now the d6 sqaure is not so weak} 19.g3 f5 20.Nc3 h5 {fixing the weakness,} 21.Nxd5 {and this i thought was a strategic blunder, not only does it relieve me of my weakness on e6, it leaves white with a terrible bishop against my awesome bishop, how wrong could i be, the square is still weak} exd5 22.Rd1e1 Rh6 {whut? faffing about, i cannot explain this move, i don't know what i was thinking, probably to defend against the rook coming to e6, i was scared, yes that's right, i said it, scared of it penetrating and munching my pawns. Teaching point : chess players should never be scared!} 23.Qe3 {drat drat and double drat, a double attack! oh well nothing else for it} Re8 24.Qxa7 Rg6 25.Rh1g1 Kd7 {and now my king is break dancing!} 26.Re5 {here i considered Bxh4 and now wished that i had played it instead of the . . . .} Rf6 { the wussie! . . . Rf6, the shame of it, I should have known i was in trouble having to defend measly pawns with my rooks, bad for business baby, real bad!} 27.Rg1e1 Rf6f8 28.Qe3 {that ice maiden is real mean! she gonna go to f3 and my rooks are over loaded.} Qd6 29.Qe2 {she went to e2 instead and i am busted! i resigned, but its ok, because i have an awesome position in our other game which i will show you when i am finished, it highlights the importance of absorbing ideas from master games}   1-0

black beetle
Black Beastie
Scheveningen
Joined
12 Jun '08
Moves
14606
17 Sep '13 12:19
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What is the advantage of having the first move in chess? It appears to me to be nothing more than the ability to dictate the tempo of the game, for example after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 the pawns come into direct contact and black is essentially coerced to take measures to do something in the centre, thus white, through use of force, dictates the tempo of the ...[text shortened]... undness, for i may be capable of rational thought, maybe not i would be pleased - regards robbie
Since the openings flow into complex middlegame structures and the long term strategies that will follow are based on them, the fruit can be seen solely if they are analysed in this context. Methinks the active defences for the Black and the forced attacks for the White dictate good game without compromises once the player has deepen and enriched the basic theory of his repertoire. For example, after 1.e5 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 the two black central pawns control all the squares of the centre, the advance ...d5/ ...e5 is a dynamic aspect, and by the pawns exchange the Black opens the c-file and counterplays on the Q-side by means of ...a6 and b5, whilst the White tries to find active solutions at the centre and at the K-side with f4 and e5/f5 or g4. The variations start right there, so at this stage methinks it's essential to know the main ideas instead of dismissing so early the theory and trying to improvise;
😵
~~robbie carrobie~~
Account suspended
Joined
26 Aug '07
Moves
38239
17 Sep '13 20:372 edits
Originally posted by black beetle
Since the openings flow into complex middlegame structures and the long term strategies that will follow are based on them, the fruit can be seen solely if they are analysed in this context. Methinks the active defences for the Black and the forced attacks for the White dictate good game without compromises once the player has deepen and enriched the ba l to know the main ideas instead of dismissing so early the theory and trying to improvise;
😵
Yes beetle you are correct, it is not without reason that the great Philador stated that pawns are the 'soul' of chess and i myself , being a peasant farmer was pleased, however Kasparov proved in his epic match with Karpov that dynamics supersedes knowledge and knowledge certainly supersedes improvisation, although there is something to be said for originality, 4sure. This is very worrying for me, because i am not by nature a good tactician and prefer clear positions to erratic and chaotic ones.

In my own mind I am thinking whether the most forcing move is always the best? this is the essence of my dilemma. It seems that it should be, logically, but by nature I like a plan of disengagement. Of course my personal preferences are irrelevant, but its difficult to divorce oneself entirely.
Habeascorp
Joined
04 Nov '08
Moves
20483
17 Sep '13 21:38
You are missing the main point. It is all about which pieces are easier to see against the contrast of the board used.
greenpawn34
e4
Joined
06 May '08
Moves
42492
18 Sep '13 02:091 edit
At the lower level it hardly matters, the mistake comes one move sooner
from the player wth the White pieces. 😉

Actually it's Black that dictates how the game goes after 1.e4 or 1.d4.
He gets to choose if it is going to be an open, semi-closed, or closed game.

Statistics at the GM level obviously show a White plus thanks largely to openng theory.
At the middle level I don't think it's too uncommon for a player to have better stats as
Black because they (we) tend to concentrate more on our Black defences.

In these circumstances the White player (especially the 1.e4 player)
will have a smattering of the theory but because there is so much
to know, Alekhines, Sicilians, Kanns, French's, Pircs, Petroff etc etc (Latvians!)
he will be using side lines which he knows pretty well but theory
dislikes, hence his ragged score with White.
ChessPraxis
Cowboy From Hell
American West
Joined
19 Apr '10
Moves
55013
18 Sep '13 03:22
Bla bla bla, lots of words, one guy moves then the other guy moves.
Don't get me wrong, no one in this world loves playing white more than me. But playing black I've had some of my better games. It's the yin and yang thing, it is a fine balance at times one dares not upset. Other times upsetting the balance is the correct thing to do. Opposites, it is what makes many scientific principles tick.

😞
black beetle
Black Beastie
Scheveningen
Joined
12 Jun '08
Moves
14606
18 Sep '13 04:28
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes beetle you are correct, it is not without reason that the great Philador stated that pawns are the 'soul' of chess and i myself , being a peasant farmer was pleased, however Kasparov proved in his epic match with Karpov that dynamics supersedes knowledge and knowledge certainly supersedes improvisation, although there is something to be said for ...[text shortened]... course my personal preferences are irrelevant, but its difficult to divorce oneself entirely.
Edit: “This is very worrying for me, because i am not by nature a good tactician and prefer clear positions to erratic and chaotic ones.”

A “good tactician” knows when it’s time to calculate and hence he looks forward to establishing a position that is close to a pattern he can use as a reference for his tactical moves. A position “chaotic” to somebody is a position which he cannot relate it to a known to him pattern and thus, instead of calculating accordingly, he has to reshuffle his pieces and see what can be done with the dynamics of the pawn structure;

Edit: “In my own mind I am thinking whether the most forcing move is always the best?”

So evaluate the position first, then plan and set targets and then play accordingly; if you feel you ‘ll get fruit and your calculation backs up this feeling, do play your most forcing move;

Edit: “It seems that it should be, logically, but by nature I like a plan of disengagement. Of course my personal preferences are irrelevant, but its difficult to divorce oneself entirely.”

Evaluate first, decide to engage or disengage according to the position, adjust your plan, calculate and then play. Methinks chess is not a Yin/Yang case (ie the first player moves implying dynamism and the second replies on this basis, the first replies back and the second replies back and so on) but a triskelion-like synthesis (the dynamism of the position per se potentially enforces or blocks or doesn’t change the mobility and the coordination of the chessmen, or affects or doesn’t affect crucially the space and the time) -and all that jazz is evaluation-sensible. This is the reason why in cases where the position is decided, the replies themselves mean nothing, for the outcome is predetermined (and thus forced), if you know what I mean;
😵
~~robbie carrobie~~
Account suspended
Joined
26 Aug '07
Moves
38239
18 Sep '13 07:39
Originally posted by greenpawn34
At the lower level it hardly matters, the mistake comes one move sooner
from the player wth the White pieces. 😉

Actually it's Black that dictates how the game goes after 1.e4 or 1.d4.
He gets to choose if it is going to be an open, semi-closed, or closed game.

Statistics at the GM level obviously show a White plus thanks largely to openng theory ...[text shortened]... e lines which he knows pretty well but theory
dislikes, hence his ragged score with White.
so true.
~~robbie carrobie~~
Account suspended
Joined
26 Aug '07
Moves
38239
18 Sep '13 07:52
Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: “This is very worrying for me, because i am not by nature a good tactician and prefer clear positions to erratic and chaotic ones.”

A “good tactician” knows when it’s time to calculate and hence he looks forward to establishing a position that is close to a pattern he can use as a reference for his tactical moves. A position “chaotic” to somebo ...[text shortened]... s mean nothing, for the outcome is predetermined (and thus forced), if you know what I mean;
😵
Yes, the mechanics of calculation is one thing, but determining whether the resultant positions are good for us, well, thats quite another. I also think you are correct, its far too much of a simplification to state it in terms of attack and defence. It reminds me of a watercolour pigment being spilled on a wet page, the colour cascades and mingles with the other colours, the exact result is impossible to predict in human terms, we can only direct due to the complex dynamics and thus chess really truly is an art form and all chess players artists.
~~robbie carrobie~~
Account suspended
Joined
26 Aug '07
Moves
38239
18 Sep '13 07:52
Originally posted by ChessPraxis
Bla bla bla, lots of words, one guy moves then the other guy moves.
Don't get me wrong, no one in this world loves playing white more than me. But playing black I've had some of my better games. It's the yin and yang thing, it is a fine balance at times one dares not upset. Other times upsetting the balance is the correct thing to do. Opposites, it is what makes many scientific principles tick.

😞
deep!
Murchu
Joined
21 Jan '11
Moves
2382
18 Sep '13 09:46
Originally posted by greenpawn34
Statistics at the GM level obviously show a White plus thanks largely to openng theory.
At the middle level I don't think it's too uncommon for a player to have better stats as
Black because they (we) tend to concentrate more on our Black defences.

In these circumstances the White player (especially the 1.e4 player)
will have a smattering of the ...[text shortened]... de lines which he knows pretty well but theory
dislikes, hence his ragged score with White.
That is an interesting theory. For some reason I've always found it easier having the black pieces and always wondered why. I guess for sub-master level games, more human factors come into it too, ie the player with black may fight harder, or the player with white may let the tempo advantage of the first move erode through quiet play.

Only Chess Forum

On the 'advantage' of the first move.