1.a3

The ability to make the first real threat, to dictate the pace and style of the game - that is what gives white a SMALL edge.  Not much of a pull, mind you, but a pull nonetheless.  In a boxing match the guy who tosses the first jab often gains some advantage, however slight, for that round, if for no other reason than his opponent must react to him.  That reactionary position is slightly disadvantageous.  Ditto for chess.

So are you saying that it's bad to give black equality???

Why in the name of all that is holy would a chess player, handling the white pieces, with a small advantage in hand, give it away?  That would be like getting up a pawn, and losing one.  Maybe not so dramatic, but when I play, I play to win.  If I have the white pieces, that makes it a little easier.  If I have black, I look for ways to achieve equality or at least an imbalance that would counteract white's usual slight pull.

I'm saying that in chess, you go for the kill.

I like what Bogoljubow said on this: If i reach this position with white, I am better because i am white. If I reach it with black, I am better because I am Bogoljubow!

thehedgehog2000, I think people are starting to be rude with this person because of this nonsense they keep flooding the topic with insisting upon racial equality in a game that has nothing to do with such social matters.  I haven't seen anyone seriously arguing that black people shouldn't be equal to white people, but he constantly draws this erroneous conclusion from discussion on chess.  Many master level players talk about black's attempt to gain equality, but yet Anonymous_U keeps insisting that it's a myth based upon racism!  If one were to say that it's just Anonymous_U's opinion, then his opinion is based purely on ignorance and faulty logic, which is exactly the same as racism.

I'd bet good money that you could beat Scottrf with 1. a3, too.  Not because the opening, but because you're ratings are very far apart.  It'd be like me betting I can beat up my friend's 3 year old son, even though I give him the first punch.

Well, okay it's not racist.  But I still don't believe that Black has to "try" to gain equality.  Black is already equal in my opinion.

I still believe it's a myth (not based on racism), that White has an advantage in the beginning.  Black is already equal.

I think Hedgy had a good point with the 1. e3.  It could turn into a reversed French.  They may do other responses, but here is an option.  To be honest, this diagram really bothers me because it's all on the wrong side!  It's still queen side, but it's on the lefthand side of the board now.

Here's another thing I thought of.  Isn't one of the things of the French Advance that white uses an extra tempo to play e5, meaning that black is now a tempo up, meaning they're now "White?"

Also, I think the exchange variation would be a bit strange in after 1.e3.  It still looks the same.

If that was the case, then GM results should have about equal win rates with both sides of the board... but they don't.

They don't because they make mistakes.  Who said that GM's don't make mistakes?  Like I said it doesn't matter until you get to at least 2800 - Kasparov level, and even then it matters so slightly, that it's hardly noticable.  

There is no statistically valid reason to believe that GMs mess up significantly more with Black, but GMs have a lower win rate with Black nonetheless.  

The math is against you on this.  

I will say that Black or White is less important at lower levels, because we make more mistakes than GMs, and thus introduce more variables into the equation.

With perfect play, the position is drawn.  So if GM's are losing playing black, they're at fault, not because they are playing Black or White...

It does matter, but only once you hit Kasparov level, and even then, so slightly, that it's hardly noticable.  

I think GMs are better at saying whether or not white has a slight edge.  I am betting that there are more victories with white since it's common for masters to play for draws as black.  Do they play for draws because they know it's harder to win as black, or is it just tradition and/or ignorance?

Ignorance and tradition...

I know that in a practical sense it doesn't matter, but theoritically, white has the opposition at the start of the game.  Just something I thought about while making some coffee this morning.

in my opinion, never play a3

or h3

h3 is bad because it weaken's the likely position of the king.

don't assume a3 is bad right off, it might beat you... with that kind of disrespect.  

Actually, 1.a3 can be quite a transpositional opening. Look at the following examples:

1.a3 ... is playable but like what somebody said here you gave up your initiative of the first move because 1. a3 ... doesn't do much except maybe protect the b4 square and support the push b4 for white.