since both sides have a terrible position the person able to repair their position earlier has an advantage. universally true. If instead both sides had an optimal position then it would be called zugzwang.
That is not the definition of "zugzwang" In "zugzwang" one side is winning.
Zugzwang is a scenario where the person to move is lost ONLY BECAUSE he must move!
It's a specific case where any move loses, but he or she would be perfectly fine if "Pass" were an option.
The following is a perfect example of "reciprical zugzwang", meaning "whoever is to move, loses", but notice how if both players could "Pass", it would be a draw:
If white's first move is agreed to be fixed. (e.g. he must play 1. e4), then does white still have the traditional "opening advantage'? Or is white's opening advantage due mainly to the fact that black does not know what white's first move is going to be?
Just something that puzzles me. What is the source of white's opening advantage?
Unless youre a GM, there really isnt an advantage playing white.
I_Am_Second wrote:
Completely false and a stupid thing to even suggest... even jumping over CM, FM and IM and just fabricating it on the fly. If you're a GM you'll likely have twice as much wins with white as black. If you're a normal player it will be small but you can see it in all statistics that white does better, even among very low rated players.
If you can't appreciate that white has an advantage after the first move then you shouldn't even be discussing openings. And it's really a problem with the internet: people like you. Who make totally misleading statements claiming to know things when you really know very little. Did it feel good to you to pretend you knew something?
If white's first move is agreed to be fixed. (e.g. he must play 1. e4), then does white still have the traditional "opening advantage'? Or is white's opening advantage due mainly to the fact that black does not know what white's first move is going to be?
Just something that puzzles me. What is the source of white's opening advantage?
Unless youre a GM, there really isnt an advantage playing white.
Completely false and a stupid thing to even suggest... even jumping over CM, FM and IM and just fabricating it on the fly. If you're a GM you'll likely have twice as much wins with white as black. If you're a normal player it will be small but you can see it in all statistics that white does better, even among very low rated players.
If you can't appreciate that white has an advantage after the first move then you shouldn't even be discussing openings. And it's really a problem with the internet: people like you. Who make totally misleading statements claiming to know things when you really know very little. Did it feel good to you to pretend you knew something?
Gotta love random generalizations...
If white's first move is agreed to be fixed. (e.g. he must play 1. e4), then does white still have the traditional "opening advantage'? Or is white's opening advantage due mainly to the fact that black does not know what white's first move is going to be?
Just something that puzzles me. What is the source of white's opening advantage?
Unless youre a GM, there really isnt an advantage playing white.
Completely false and a stupid thing to even suggest... even jumping over CM, FM and IM and just fabricating it on the fly. If you're a GM you'll likely have twice as much wins with white as black. If you're a normal player it will be small but you can see it in all statistics that white does better, even among very low rated players.
If you can't appreciate that white has an advantage after the first move then you shouldn't even be discussing openings. And it's really a problem with the internet: people like you. Who make totally misleading statements claiming to know things when you really know very little. Did it feel good to you to pretend you knew something?
Gotta love random generalizations...
Alright, I am sure you can be reliable and accurate most of the time, just not on this occasion. I've been annoyed by some others here recently, this site is very bad for false information.
If white's first move is agreed to be fixed. (e.g. he must play 1. e4), then does white still have the traditional "opening advantage'? Or is white's opening advantage due mainly to the fact that black does not know what white's first move is going to be?
Just something that puzzles me. What is the source of white's opening advantage?
Unless youre a GM, there really isnt an advantage playing white.
Completely false and a stupid thing to even suggest... even jumping over CM, FM and IM and just fabricating it on the fly. If you're a GM you'll likely have twice as much wins with white as black. If you're a normal player it will be small but you can see it in all statistics that white does better, even among very low rated players.
If you can't appreciate that white has an advantage after the first move then you shouldn't even be discussing openings. And it's really a problem with the internet: people like you. Who make totally misleading statements claiming to know things when you really know very little. Did it feel good to you to pretend you knew something?
Gotta love random generalizations...
Alright, I am sure you can be reliable and accurate most of the time, just not on this occasion. I've been annoyed by some others here recently, this site is very bad for false information.
Does white have an advanatge withthe first move? Sure..we can all agree on that. But at the class level, how much is that advantage? Not much IMO, and below Class C, proably none.
the advantage of white actually seems to be mroe at lower levels. If you jsut search statistics of many games played in the lower levels you will see a large statistical favor for white. Its not because the person playing white necessarily knows how to squeeze every advantage from his tempo advantage...thats not needed. We can say that both players will make about the same number of mistakes but because white has a tempo advantage its far mroe likely that minor errors by black will end up being fatal. The subtlety of a tempo advantage might even be completely beyond the grasp of both palyers yet still its there.
Very possibly true, but from my experience. Coming up through the ranks, I always found the easiest players to beat were the opening whores (as we called them), and the "tactical" class players. The players that know there favorite openings 20 moves deep, and study Tals games, and were then bestowed great tactical vision. The toughest players were the well balanced players.
It's worth about 40 elo points.
the advantage of white actually seems to be mroe at lower levels. If you jsut search statistics of many games played in the lower levels you will see a large statistical favor for white. Its not because the person playing white necessarily knows how to squeeze every advantage from his tempo advantage...thats not needed. We can say that both players will make about the same number of mistakes but because white has a tempo advantage its far mroe likely that minor errors by black will end up being fatal. The subtlety of a tempo advantage might even be completely beyond the grasp of both palyers yet still its there.
Very possibly true, but from my experience. Coming up through the ranks, I always found the easiest players to beat were the opening whores (as we called them), and the "tactical" class players. The players that know there favorite openings 20 moves deep, and study Tals games, and were then bestowed great tactical vision. The toughest players were the well balanced players.
What does that have to do with a tempo advantage?
Unless you know what to do, the extra tempo doesnt mean a thing.
I think the " advantage " of playing white is higher at the elite level and the further down the rating list you go the more that " advantage " shrinks . I have had tournies in which I have scored better with black than with white and tournies in which I have done better with white , which makes me wonder how much of an advantage does white really have ? I think the person who serves in tennis has a much larger advantage than the chess player who has white .
Stats would be on your side for this point
I would say yes white has a slight edge on all levels, the edge is slighty due to theoretical reasons and slightly due to practical reasons.
It is easier when having an extra move to arange a favorable pawn break. This means at low levels white is able to start their attack first. On high levels it is a bit easier to avoid a draw with white and play for a win then it is with black.
Of course most of this goes out the window with one inaccurate move but statistics bear out that black has just a slightly harder task from a human perspective.
the advantage of white actually seems to be mroe at lower levels. If you jsut search statistics of many games played in the lower levels you will see a large statistical favor for white. Its not because the person playing white necessarily knows how to squeeze every advantage from his tempo advantage...thats not needed. We can say that both players will make about the same number of mistakes but because white has a tempo advantage its far mroe likely that minor errors by black will end up being fatal. The subtlety of a tempo advantage might even be completely beyond the grasp of both palyers yet still its there.
FiveofSwords statement about White having an advantage in beginner level is a true statement.
I think the main reason is simply becuase when you are a beginner its hard to find lines for black.
Like you can go and google lines to play as white as a beginner and get 100's of different lines but when you do same thing as black I think its extremely harder.
If you was to google the Fried liver right now their would be maybe 1,000 videos on that line. If you do same thing on how to defend it as black with the 2 knights you will not find a video lol. I have yet to find a 2 knights defensive video. I think maybe I have seen 1 video and that was not even with the main Na5 response it was with b5 being played a offbeat side line example.
An if they show a video of black they never show it from the black side its always from the white side. Well F U you imbecile I don't want to see it from the white side. I'm playing black and I want to see it from the blacks point of view. You can't play a chess game OTB from your opponents point of view. WTF?
It is true fact.
Than people give recommendations for white such as Italian Game and London System. Full explainations.
Yet none are given to black. An what is worse is all they give black is 1 move explaination.
They tell beginners to answer 1.e4 with e5 and 1.d4 with d5 and thats all black knows
lol 1 move everything esle they just have to figure it out. Which is why white just crushes in the beginner level.
I personally had a problem as black. An I do not believe I am the only player. An what is worse is the lines you find on video's for black are usually GM level lines which are very complex which a beginner can't really understand.
So I agree with FiveofSwords statement and I disagree with any statements that say white at beginner level doesn't have a huge advantage.
Thats redicilous. They get solid instructional lines as white 100's of them and when you look for the same things as black their is absolutely nothing give.
The only way to learn with the black pieces is to watch a video that is showing a White line than try and copy the black moves played against white. An pray that the moves you are copying are correct.
Which is called hope chess which is why alot of people play hope chess. Because their is no explaination from the black side. They don't care about the black side its dismissed.
BALONEY! I can play Black looking at the board from the White side. It's not the most convenient, but anybody that is capable of playing the game of chess can view a position from either side and properly assess the position.
If the following two positions look different to you and you are incapable of properly assessing one of them but claim you can correctly assess the other, then you don't know jack about chess!
Wow, looking at those two positions for a split second, I found some very interesting things!
1: From black's perspective I see the bishop is threatened immediately, but from white's perspective it takes me a little while to realize.
2: From white's perspective I don't notice the open c file, but from black's perstective I see the opportunity to place my rook there.
3: From white's perspective the knight looks out of play. From black's it doesn't
4: From white's perspective the two bishop and queen look threatening and centralized. From black's perspective it is only the queen and the black bishop that look centralized.
5: From white's position black's move f5 seems out of the question (as a general move, obviously black's bishop is threatened at this very moment) but from black's perspective it doesn't seem so bad.
With some time these I would see these boards the same way, but my split second instincts seem totally different. I wonder why, and if it affects my game that some things seem like good moves from one perspective but harmless moves from the other perspective.
BALONEY! I can play Black looking at the board from the White side. It's not the most convenient, but anybody that is capable of playing the game of chess can view a position from either side and properly assess the position.
If the following two positions look different to you and you are incapable of properly assessing one of them but claim you can correctly assess the other, then you don't know jack about chess!
Are you trying to say that you are allowed to sit in your opponents seat OTB and play your moves from his position?
Or is white's opening advantage due mainly to the fact that black does not know what white's first move is going to be?
If you ask me, that's the other way around. Black has a chance to see what White is doing, and then can respond accordingly. However, I still think White has a slight advantage, simply because Black must respond to White's move.
Believe it or not, you can walk round behind him to look at the board, provided you don't put him off in any way. If you keep out of his line of vision and don't make a sound, it should be kosher. Occasionally in a really difficult position it can help to literally get a different perspective.
Yes I understand that. However, from my knowledge you can not sit in their seat and play the game.
Which goes to show my basic point. A beginner has enough problems to worry about in their chess game and to add more confusion by showing the position from a completely different side of the board is a very jerk thing to do. I believe they are imbeciles when they do that.
ThrillerFan said the following statement "If the following two positions look different to you and you are incapable of properly assessing one of them but claim you can correctly assess the other, then you don't know jack about chess!"
This notion is completely dubious and incorrect. Just becuase a person can play a line from 1 side does not mean. He is entitled to be forced to learn and play it from the other side.
An to show how stupid this notion is I will give you an example.
Magnus was in a simul playing almost 10-20 games at once blindfolded.
Well ThrillerFan if you can't play 20 games blindfolded and win everyone than you don't know jack about chess!
Do you see how stupid that sounds.
The only reason a person would look at a position from the other side of the board would be to get a different prespective/ view point or to try and learn the line from the white side. Nothing more or Nothing less.
You should not be forced to play it from the other side. If you do not want too.
An people are trying to do this to beginners. Forcing a beginner to learn a black sided line from the white side. Don't you think they have enough on their plate already. An people want to be the imbeciles to add more obstacles. I'm disgusted. The beginner already has enough pressure and people want to kick them while they are already down just to feel good about themselves.
If White doesn't know how to answer whatever Black responds with on their very first move... the White player has got big problems!