"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.
Ok cigoL, so present us with the empirical evidence you've used to conclude that chess is a win for White. We're going to need something more convincing than your gut feeling.
We know from zugzwang positions that having the move can sometimes be a disadvantage. I've also presented an example (and there are many more) which shows that even what we percieve to be a large advantage (two rooks vs bishop) is sometimes not enough to win. Both these facts raise doubts over your claim that, with perfect play, White can convert his first move advantage.
If chess is theoretically a draw then the first move provides theoretically no advantage