White to win and Black to draw?

Just as a matter of interest, in the recent Topalov/Kramnik duel, there were a total of 16 games including rapid games. But games actually played were 15 in total. The outcomes of the games are like this:

White pieces won 6 games;
black pieces won 2 game;
drew 7 games.

If these games are anyting to go by, it seems that there is enough justification to the claim that white pieces have winning advantage.

I'm only happy with a draw if I have a lost game, and even then I'll try to find the most agressive defence. if my opponent slips, I'll be there to catch it.

win with white, win with black! 🙂

If you look in any large database, you'll see that white wins more often than black. It's not a huge effect - black wins plenty of games too - but white definitely has an edge, which I think works out to white scoring around 55% overall. That doesn't mean White wins 55% of the time; on the GM level that may work out to something like...

White wins: 35%
Black wins: 25%
Draw: 40%

Those numbers are completely arbitrary, but should illustrate the point.

For more fun check out this: Thread 31062

Since 2001 in games where at least one player was 2200 or above:

white won 37%
black won 28%
draws 35%

These numbers are from my own database, last updated in mid-summer

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Since 2001 in games where at least one player was 2200 or above:

white won 37%
black won 28%
draws 35%

These numbers are from my own database, last updated in mid-summer

That makes my guess look pretty good, thanks! 🙂

One thing that those stats can be used to evaluate is the Clint Ballard BAP scoring system, and whether it's more or less fair than traditional scoring. For people not familiar with his scoring idea, it is:

Black Wins: 3 points
White Wins: 2 points
Black Draws: 1 point
White Draw: 0 points

This system is designed to promote decisive results, but also gives black an added edge in scoring because of the disadvantage he starts with.


Under the normal 1/.5/0 scoring system, using the numbers provided, it's pretty easy to see white's expected score:

(1*.37) + (.5*.35)
(.37) + (.175) = .545

So assuming equally skilled players, white expects to score .545 points each game, and black .455 (or 54.5% and 45.5% in the long run). As a ratio, being white is "worth" 1.2 times as much as being black.

In BAP scoring, white would have scored:

(2*.37) = .74 points per game, while black scores:

(3*.28) + (1*.35)
.84 + .35 = 1.19 points per game.

As a ratio, being black in this system is worth 1.61 as much as being white. Dropping the number of draws and redistributing them as wins among the two players (which is what the system is designed to do) does cut the gap down a little, but the system does still seem to sacrifice fairness in the name of excitement.

Originally posted by OrangeKing
That makes my guess look pretty good, thanks! 🙂

One thing that those stats can be used to evaluate is the Clint Ballard BAP scoring system, and whether it's more or less fair than traditional scoring. For people not familiar with his scoring idea, it is:

Black Wins: 3 points
White Wins: 2 points
Black Draws: 1 point
White Draw: 0 points

This n a little, but the system does still seem to sacrifice fairness in the name of excitement.

Curt Collyer wrote a piece for Northwest Chess excoriating Ballard's proposal ( also published in Northwest Chess ). I agree with Collyer.

A Grandmaster (I don't remember who) is quoted in "The Chess Opening for You" by Larry Evans as saying that the better player will win with either color, but it takes longer with Black.

Bobby Fischer supposedly said that he became a very strong player once he realized that he could win with Black.