How much does the first move matter?

So your first moves do make a difference, thanks.

My database shows that 1. f3 e5 wins 66.7% of the time for Black.

The key word here is opposition.  Usually; having the next move is paramount in most chess games.  Having the initiative or grabing the initiative as well as knowing when to release the initiative back to your opponent at the proper time is also paramount in a chess game.  White has an advantage with his first move but; black has an advantage as well; being in his defensive reply to retain equality.

What if we discover that the starting position is a complicated zugzwang? :)

What if we discovered that we are just a dream inside another dreamer's dream???

How many games with this opening in your database?

48

lol

Well, that doesn't tell us much then. 

I thought that was a pretty huge number of games with that var. 

Yes, a lot more than in the Game Explorer. Still to little to be of much use statistically. 

It tells us that 99.99999999% of chessplayers would rather not play this [f3/e5] for some strange and hard to fathom reason.

Oh yeah, because it wastes the advantage of the first move, unless you are playing a complete dingbat.

It matters a lot in the highest level chess. See Anand using 1.d4 in World championship match in Bonn against Kramnik. 

True, DrSpu.... What I tried to say is: to few games played with this opening doesn't tell us anything statistically about the strength of the opening.

I think I supplied some evidence with the drawing rate going up with the standard. But I'll add this: so far, we have solved tic-tac-toe, Connect 4 and recently, checkers. All these are games, like chess, which are equal apart from the fact that one side has an opening-move advantage. All are known to be drawn. If someone is claiming chess is somehow different, then IMHO the burden of proof is definitely on them.

I do have another point (in fact, my main point), which I have held back so far for reasons of tact, because it is hard to express without sounding like a higher-rated player looking over his nose at a lower-rated player. That isn't my intention, so please don't take it like that. It's like this:

It's not correct to put an artificial dividing line between understanding how to play chess well, and understanding about chess in a general sense. The two go hand in hand. In order to reach expert level, never mind master level, requires a certain 'feel' for the game, the pieces etc, which means that not all a strong chess player's thought and reasoning is 'empirical', rather it's also based on judgement and intuitive knowledge that is built up from playing and studying the game over a period of time. It's this type of knowledge which tells stronger players that the game is drawn, which is why 99.9% of GMs agree with me - I wasn't using that statistic in the abstract, I was trying to use it as a politer way of saying this, but since it didn't work, I've had to be blunter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connect_four

connect four is not a draw

Apologies, shouldn't have included Connect 4. Was under the impression that is was drawn.

"The burden of proof" - I'm sick of this sentence! It seems like everyone has read Dawkins, and his constant use (or rather misuse) of this term. The idea of "burden of proof" is in conflict with the scientific method, and makes no sense, since real science doesn't try to prove anything in the first place.

If chess is theoretically a draw then the first move provides no advantage. If chess is a win for White then the first move advantage is infinite. For further reading, see:

http://oeco.blogspot.com/2010/12/epistemology-of-chess-advantage.html