Nonsense. The higher the average rating, the more advantage white. Period.
*gives everyone who said otherwise a weird look*
Question about white opening advantage
Sort:
I was curious about this once and actually did some statistical analysis of some local tournaments. In my city there are local g/30 tournaments held every month with sections Open, U1800, U1400, etc, and the TD lists the colors for each round on the uscf reports, so it was easy to make an excel sheet of white vs. black stats
I did a quick look at 5 tournaments in the Open section (players between 1700 and 2300, with most in the 1900-2100 range), and over the course of about 200 games, White scored about 54%. I don't know if the sample size is large enough, but it seems to indicate white still has an advantage at the good-amateur level.
For what its worth, I also looked at the U1000 sections, and black won like 55% of the time.
under 1000 black has the advantage? I guess because many White players fall into the 2 move mate?
May 10, 2015
0
#45
I am inclined to agree with Optimissed of UK's comments..at our levels his
comments are more in line with practical experiences and reality..
It seems that part of the white advantage at lower levels is due to fewer draws. Often, when you reach for the win from an equal or minus position, you leave yourself open to losing. Weak players such as myself always look for opponents weaknesses to attack but do not notice that attacking those weaknesses leaves our own weaknesses open. Black begins with a minus position so this is more likely to work against black.
well it's not true that the last blunder loses.
you could be 7 queens up, blunder away 6 of them and still win.
can you back up your figures with some hard factual data ?
it's a pity you can neither take a joke or recognize one.
guys pls dont argue. ramona-carbona was just suggesting an idea.
I don't use engine assistance.
You can ask staff to run my games through analysis if you wish.
Thanks for the hatred.
Can you now please find someone else to stalk ?
hayabusahayate16 wrote:
Ramona-Carbona wrote:
it's a pity you can neither take a joke or recognize one.
It's a pity that you use engine assistance in your games here. And it is never the audience to be blamed for a horrible joke. If it was even a joke(whether or not you intended it as one) it is not even remotely funny.
You seem to have a habit of accusing people of engine assistance. This is not proper according to chess.com
It's a pity u have no sense of humor and will be BANNED by me
If white plays the opening agressively, white should maintain a lead in development (at least for the first few moves), while black tries to catch up.
May 12, 2015
0
#55
X_PLAYER_J_X wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
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.
You have no clue what you are talking about.
The point is simple.
John Doe says "I understand the French Defense"
For that to be a true statement, he would need to be able to understand what White needs to do and what Black needs to do. He may, by choice, only choose to play it from the Black side, and maybe he plays the English Opening as White, but for John Doe to be making a true statement of "I understand the French Defense", he must at least be CAPABLE of playing it from either side of the Board, Black or White.
If after 12 moves of Poisoned Pawn French he recognizes the position from the Black perspective, and maybe knows a couple of good moves from there out of memory, but then turns the board around and sees the position from White's perspective and has no earthly clue what is going on or what White's ideas are, then he does not know the French Defense. He is able to parrot 12 moves from the White side. He still doesn't actually understand what he is doing!
There's a major difference between the two. I understand the Stonewall Dutch. I understand the Najdorf Sicilian. I understand the Classical King's Indian. I can only parrot the Leningrad Dutch!
ThrillerFan wrote:
You have no clue what you are talking about.
The point is simple.
John Doe says "I understand the French Defense"
For that to be a true statement, he would need to be able to understand what White needs to do and what Black needs to do. He may, by choice, only choose to play it from the Black side, and maybe he plays the English Opening as White, but for John Doe to be making a true statement of "I understand the French Defense", he must at least be CAPABLE of playing it from either side of the Board, Black or White.
If after 12 moves of Poisoned Pawn French he recognizes the position from the Black perspective, and maybe knows a couple of good moves from there out of memory, but then turns the board around and sees the position from White's perspective and has no earthly clue what is going on or what White's ideas are, then he does not know the French Defense. He is able to parrot 12 moves from the White side. He still doesn't actually understand what he is doing!
There's a major difference between the two. I understand the Stonewall Dutch. I understand the Najdorf Sicilian. I understand the Classical King's Indian. I can only parrot the Leningrad Dutch!
I am sorry but I disagree with some of what you said.
"Bobby Fischer" played 1.e4 almost exclusively. He did play 1.c4 before and I believe on very very few instances he played 1.d4.
He understood the Kings Indian Defence as black very well. Does that mean he had to play it from white's point of view? No it does not.
As a chess player, you can figure out from the black side what white is planning to do with his moves.
Which is why they tell beginners to pay attention to their opponents moves.
I do agree with your idea. Your idea of learning the position from both sides can help in knowing your line better. Yet It does not mean it is forced/impossible to learn it only from 1 side.
Which goes back to the notion that learning from 1 side is possible and can be done.
Some players in chess play unsound openings. I frankly do not wish to learn their unsound openings as white to better understand it as black? An I do not have to.
However, In saying all of this I believe this disagreement we have is totally irrelevent to the thread.
The question is about whites opening advantage.
Which I believe white can have. Since white has the advantage of the first move.
Optimissed wrote:
I think that Xplayer sometimes over-reacts to criticism and adopts a sort of hostile, opposed view. This is what happened to me when we had our differences about a bit of analysis. There's no reason to get upset and if a person does, he or she has to accept that someone else might very well get upset at them. But people are coming from different angles and different ability levels. We should probably try to get along and make this a forum from which everybody can learn, which means accepting that people may have different angles and different ability levels but that doesn't necessarily make them wrong from that angle and maybe within that ability level. Even when I just got confused about what side of a position someone was supposed to be playing, that was my stupidity but it isn't a very big deal.
I am use to criticism and no I am not hostile. I simply just state my point of view. I can be blunt sometimes but I'm just that type of person.
As for ThrillerFan, I have always seem to have gotten along with Thriller. He knows what he is talking about most of the time and isn't a troll.
I just believe sometimes he says statements which are sometimes questionable.
His view that a person must learn a position from both sides to fully understand it seems like an objective opinon. The reason why is becuase every person learns differently. Some people get more confused when they try to do such methods. Others understand better. It really is a controversal statement.
However, it is a controversal statement better left I believe to people who are not beginners. My original statement was directed to people who show how to play a line as black from a white view point for beginners.
I believe beginners have enough issues when learning chess. Showing them a line for black with the white pieces might simply cause more confusion. An some beginners might even get confused and start calling the Opening with the White pieces the wrong name etc.
As for the following statement " This is what happened to me when we had our differences about a bit of analysis."
I was not hostile to you. I was just annoyed. I was annoyed becuase you never had ambition of changing your mind. You was content on playing a Sicilian Kan/Paulsen type of position. Which If you had said that from the beginning I would of been ok with that. The Sicilian Kan/Pauslen is very respectable.
However, the way it went down it seemed as if I was being lead on as if you was hiding some secret continuation which you had made up or something of that nature.
My analysis was not a wasted of effort though. I did learn something the final positions looked similar to Sicilian Najdorf type of positions.
hayabusahayate16 wrote:
what nonsense is this? Nothing in life can be claimed to be understood if you haven't a clue about it from a different angle. This is why we use a devil's advocate to further understand ideas.
I never objected to getting different angles or prespectives.
My objective is learning a whole line from the white side in which you have no intension of playing.
Thrillers agruement is its impossible to learn a line from the black side with out learning the whole thing from white side?
Which simply is not true.
He is using an absolute statement. An absolutes corrupt absolutely.
@X PLAYER JX Haha, I think the phrase you're referring to is "absolute power corrupts absolutely", which doesn't seem relevent to the discussion. It's funny that you tried to make it work though :)
dpnorman wrote:
@X PLAYER JX Haha, I think the phrase you're referring to is "absolute power corrupts absolutely", which doesn't seem relevent to the discussion. It's funny that you tried to make it work though :)
I think they both work becuase you understood what I ment. In this case we are not talking about power we are just talking about his absolute statement.
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.
this is correct. both players may be blundering forward on every move but white gets an extra incorrectly handled move.