I think white's assumed advantage is real enough (though small)...I believe I read that if you take a strong computer (e.g. fritz) and have it play against itself, it will do better as white.
For people to follow the philosophy of win as white draw as black is somewhat silly. This idea may only apply to tournaments of GMs etc.
Originally posted by Essex 3What the statistics show is a selffulfilling prophecy.With the mindset "win as White draw as Black" it's only natural White will win more.
A position is only a zugzwang if it is proved that it is a disadvantage to have the move. Since the thread is a discussion about this, with Fischer saying "I think it's almost definite that the game is a draw theoretically.". Gorgar claiming "Black doesn't need to seek equality,
he allready(sic) has it!", but nobody proving it one way or the other, it can't ...[text shortened]... proach. After all, if you do this you score 75%, enough to win many tournaments easily.
Anyway,I'm not nearly good enough at this game to claim White has or hasn't an advantage at the start.It's just that I fail to see why having the first move should give you the advantage.I just don't believe in it.
Originally posted by exigentskyWith the first move you may start the fight to gain control over the centre(important squares) but you do not gain anything yet.
With the first move, you gain control of the important squares and dictate the game. I think it is a small advantage.
As for dictating the game,well,Black has quite a bit of a say in that too.
So White will be first to station his pieces, and this could be the advantage. The question is if the extra information that black gets from this (knowing what white did) at his turn makes it equal - or if he simply is one turn behind without compensation?
Edit: I mean, he clearly has some information which white doesn't have at his turn. But is this enough to exploit to call himself at equality? Is it better to have the information or have the tempo (theoretically seen)?
If I'm not wrong, I think the resulting position from somewhere in the Russian defence is almost completely symmetrical with the exception of the placement of a knight and c-pawn which attacks while the black one only defends. That's still like a very small improvement from the equal placed opening. In the end-game, a pawn which is one step more forward than the other part can be decisive, but on the other hand it could also be so that both of those pawn Queen and there's a draw anyway.
Originally posted by GorgarYou do gain it. Of course, this only lasts until black moves.
With the first move you may start the fight to gain control over the centre(important squares) but you do not gain anything yet.
As for dictating the game,well,Black has quite a bit of a say in that too.
Originally posted by exigentskyLOL True,true.But not much of an advantage then,is it?
You do gain it. Of course, this only lasts until black moves.
The whole discussion is rather futile anyway (allthough I do find it intresting).Even if White does have an advantage he'll throw it away at some point.After all,the perfect game hasn't yet been played.
Originally posted by BedlamBut it has NOT been proved that every white opening move loses; therefore the initial position is not a zugzwang.
It is zugzwang if its proven that every white opening move loses.
Fischer saying chess is a theoretical draw means nothing. He couldnt possibly know.
Also you are stretching Fischer's statement, he only said it was "almost definite" not that it was a certainty.
Further, are you seriously suggesting that on a chess topic we should place more reliance on your opinion than Fischer's ?
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by Essex 3I was entertaining the idea if all white openings lose then it is zugzwang. Its not going to get proven any time soon.
But it has NOT been proved that every white opening move loses; therefore the initial position is not a zugzwang.
Also you are stretching Fischer's statement, he only said it was "almost definite" not that it was a certainty.
Further, are you seriously suggesting that on a chess topic we should place more reliance on your opinion than Fischer's ?
Do you really think Fischer knows chess? In 100 years time Fischers idea of chess is going to be down to their IM level if not lower.
Originally posted by GorgarIt was only after the recording of game moves became common that it became clear that more games were won by White than by Black, although since White moves first and therefore has the initiative, this had probably been suspected. Therefore your remark about "a selffulfilling prophecy" is wrong. The statistics were examined and the conclusion was then drawn that White has an initial advantage.
What the statistics show is a selffulfilling prophecy.With the mindset "win as White draw as Black" it's only natural White will win more.
Anyway,I'm not nearly good enough at this game to claim White has or hasn't an advantage at the start.It's just that I fail to see why having the first move should give you the advantage.I just don't believe in it.
What a great deal of opening theory is about is how Black can nulify White's opening advantage. If he can do this then he has attained equality, and can search for a way to gain superiority himself.
Of course if White does not play sharply, or commits an actual error, or worse, blunders, Black will equalize earlier. Black may even gain the initiative, reach a superior, or even a winning position.
You have not provided anything in the way of evidence, only stated your own opinion, while the
records of a large sample of the Master games played over the last 150 years is very good evidence,
which shows that games between the best players DO produce more wins for White than for Black, and also produce a high proportion of draws.
Another World Championship Match; Emanuel Lasker v Carl Schlechter 1910 was drawn 1 - 8 - 1,
each player won once as White and there were eight draws.