Originally posted by schakuhrYep, strong players have let me meander through a previously played game then sprung an improvement on me at just the right moment.
Trust me, that won't ever happen. Databases are of little use if there are no annotations. That's why you should always check if what you are doing is right - even if the game you are following is won for you. players like IM always will find an improvement on the line.
EDIT: Coma
Originally posted by damjanrLikewise if you're bad! 😉
all that is nonsense... if you're good the color does not matter
In anycase if it's a real bother why not just suggest to your opponent that you play one game as black and another as white, that's pretty standard practice, most people should be happy to do it.
Originally posted by flexmoreI have stared at this thread in disbelief for some time and have fought the urge to post for awhile now. I can't see any of us amateurs feeling the supposed "white wins because they move first scenario". Maybe just maybe when akizy and im and tebb play, maybe. For the rest of us, I would'nt think a minute about it. I've noticed as I improve that most of my games are won on blunders of one degree or another. If not an obvious blunder, then a subtle slip in position.
white has no advantage at all if:
both players are less than 2000 and not using opening databases.
but:
if the white player uses an opening database ... then even a weak player may wander into a draw against ironman and have no idea of what they just did.
other strong players will also use this (and presumably ironman too)
but ...
they cou ...[text shortened]... e against higher rated players should count for little in an opening-database-using situation.
Now on the idea of beating or drawing im with a database. This is insane. I've played im numerous times now. I've opened straight out of a book and followed it to it's logical conclusion. I've looked up games of gm's playing the dutch (his favored defense), and have beat many with what I've learned but I never touched im. I've played safe, I've played reckless. I've played positional strentgh and I've played wildly tactical. My last game with him I went out of book early and played a tactical line that no databse would have listed, he just countered it and walked out clean. I've thrown everything and the kitchen sink at this man, and he just won't go down. the best I've ever done was a caro kann that lasted almost 60 moves, in which I blundered a rook in the endgame. There is no book or database that will let you just accidently draw or beat im.
It's just a fantasy to suggest otherwise.
Originally posted by flexmoreWhat if you scaneed the games of players rated like yourself. Say around 1700! And see what the net differnce is, I am curious.
i just scanned through all the games between the top 6 players,
there are
18 wins as white,
32 draws,
8 wins as black.
at that level white's advantage is huge!
While I agree that if you are better than a player you will nearly always win. I have found that when playing my Dad OTB colour matters quite a bit. Since we started playing again I have won every game when playing as white (out of 20 ish) and have lost and drawn a few as black. We are very similarly matched players (if anything I am a little better due to playing on RHP and knowing a few openings)
I find that chess unlike any other board game is very farily matched, there is no elemnt left to the chance of rolling a dice or turring a card. However there is a small advantege when playing white against a player of a very similar ability. Otherwise it would have to be coincidence that I have beaten my Dad every time while playing as white
Originally posted by jugglingeekUnless you and your dad are both titled players it is indeed chance. Playing first is worth at most around 0.4 pawns. During your game both of you will make mistakes much larger than that. Because of that the advantage is essentially meaningless.
While I agree that if you are better than a player you will nearly always win. I have found that when playing my Dad OTB colour matters quite a bit. Since we started playing again I have won every game when playing as white (out of 20 ish) and have lost and drawn a few as black. We are very similarly matched players (if anything I am a little better due ...[text shortened]... wise it would have to be coincidence that I have beaten my Dad every time while playing as white
Originally posted by howardgeeI usually forget to set the colour when creating an open invite and since the default is white I mostly have played white so far. If I have a rematch I play black.
As I write there are 16 open invites, two of whom want to play black!!
Everybody seems to agree that white has an advantage.
Why doesnt RHP set the default to black then there will be more black open invites.
Or they could set open invites to a random color.
Originally posted by jugglingeek
While I agree that if you are better than a player you will nearly always win. I have found that when playing my Dad OTB colour matters quite a bit. Since we started playing again I have won every game when playing as white (out of 20 ish) and have lost and drawn a few as black. We are very similarly matched players (if anything I am a little better due ...[text shortened]... wise it would have to be coincidence that I have beaten my Dad every time while playing as white
I think it is more of a case where you both know how to play as white better, not because of the very tiny white advantage in playing first.
Otherwise statistically you would each win slightly more than 50% of the time as white, but this is not the case. You both almost always win as white.
Originally posted by ExyHm, not necessarily. When I started playing chess, I felt it was too confusing to play different colours, so I played only white for several weeks (actually I didn't have a choice in the beginning, because I only had a free demo of a chess program in which you couldn't play black). Then I started to play black from time to time, but naturally I found it much easier to play white because that was what I was used to. When I joined TFC I was still clearly better with white. Now, after playing chess for about 9 months, I think I have come to the point where it doesn't matter anymore. Of course, the difference doesn't have anything to do with white having an advantage - I am sure if I had started with playing black, I would have been better with black. But if you don't start out playing the same number of games with both colours, I'd say colours matter for a beginner.
Likewise if you're bad! 😉
So, in summary, it seems agreed on this site (as in the chess world in general) that white DOES have an advantage over black.
Give this fact, then what is the problem with giving a slight ratings weighting to black?
Where could be the harm in this?
After all RHP is only a web-site, why not try to be the cutting edge of chess?
Originally posted by howardgeeSo are you proposing that a player like me who prefers the black pieces should get more points whenever I win? How many more points? I think you're just trying to over-complicate things unnecessarily. The serious matches here are Clan and Tournament games where you play simultaneously as black and white, the rest of the games are "friendlies" to my mind and if you're bothered that much then suggest to your opponent that you play simultaneously as black and white.
So, in summary, it seems agreed on this site (as in the chess world in general) that white DOES have an advantage over black.
Give this fact, then what is the problem with giving a slight ratings weighting to black?
Where could be ...[text shortened]... P is only a web-site, why not try to be the cutting edge of chess?
In any case, you've made your point and it now seems somewhat tired. 😴 The rating system is never going to be perfect, it galls me when I struggle to beat a Class A player who's rating is currently around 1350 (due to whatever number of reasons, new player, time outs etc.) and I don't get a single rating point for the hard fought win - so in the scheme of things "white's advantage" is so slight it's not worth worrying about.
I find playing OTB as black is very hard. In correspondace, it is not a problem, you move when you are not tired and alert, but in OTB, when you are playing/thinking 3 hours straight, black often has to defend a lot, and I find thinking up defenses more tiring then say, thinking up simple attacks, and I don't need to point out if black misses just ONE of those attacks, he's dead, you may have stoped 12 other previous attacks, but the one you didn't notice, is what matters. All in all, I find black frustrating in OTB, I feel like I never get the chance to attack.
I find myself preferrring black otb. I always have. I like to counter and wait for that mistake. I told my friends they could have black when they beat me, and sometimes I might actually have to play a game as white, but not for long. 🙂 For a while they almost believed black had the advantage because I always chose it.
I have one opponent I pay otb who opens like a madman so when I play him I alternate black and white. I use him to test out new openings.
Originally posted by chessicleIt was Bogolyubov. Steinitz never said anything like that. Incorrect statements from the past are extemely common in the chess community because of an extremely sloppy approach to chess history. Wrong stories get frequently repeated by GM's even.
Didn't Bogolyubov say this? With his own name, of course?