Statistics on white advantage with various opening positions?

It occurred to me that Chess.com runs an awful lot of games of Chess960, and the results of all of those games are available.

One of the great criticisms of Chess960 is that white has a significant advantage in many opening positions.  Does chess.com keep records that would confirm or refute that?  Are there statistics that show a huge advantage in some positions?  Has anyone pored through the statistics to determine trends, like whether or not the first turn advantage is more pronounced at low ratings than at higher ratings?

I have defended Chess960 as being at least as good as, and in some ways better than, Chess.  However, if it turned out that the deck really was stacked against the black player, I would have to admit that the game was pretty much broken, and needed some emergency repairs to fix.  The statistics from this site ought to be able to answer that question.

Well no answers here yet, but I did find some information on the web.  The best statistics I found were from here:

http://computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/404FRC/opening_report_by_eco.html

It has statistics for all 960 opening positions.  "Regular" Chess (RNBQKBNR) has a white win rate of 55%.  The biggest advantage for white was 63%. Quite a few of the positions had much smaller advantages for white.

The down side is that the statistics here are using chess engines, not human play, which could be significantly different, but it's still a good database of results.  

I think it shows that Chess960 is not a lot worse than regular Chess when it comes to white advantage.

interesting question, I have no answer, though.

Or maybeb in chess960 white has many opening traps to invent  which combined with the initiative gives white the advantage much easier for now...

A completely valid point, so long as all games are randomized with no repeats of starting positions. So long as both players have to play a black and white game is each starting position (i.e. each random situation is played by white by BOTH players, back to back), then I don't see it as being "broken" at all.

OP

Thank you for that link, I do not recall seeing that before, I have saved the link.

This topic is of interest to me because:

I have made a game that has a random starting position.

I am writing the program for the game using Visual Studio, Visual C# and Unity.

I have also written code for the game engine using Visual C and magic bitboards which I am re-writing in Visual C#. 

I have done a LOT of work with Fischer Random, I use an engine set to this game mode and watch the MACHINES play...

People often complain that in FRC White has a significant advantage in a lot of the starting positions.

I however do not think that this is the main problem.

In my opinion, Fischer Random Chess IS BROKEN but not for the obvious reasons that people often say.

For me Fischer Random Chess is broken by the MACHINES.

It is the modern way to use engines during study and analysis, how else will people learn.

With Fischer Random Chess however, the positions seem very strange and unnatural when using engines.

This is a significant barrier in the adoption of the game by humans, they are put off by what they are seeing on the board, and I do not blame them.

Here is a simple example that I will not explain in great detail.

In this example it starts with the standard chess position and only one change has been made, the Rooks and Bishops have been swopped around.

This is what the machines do at the start of the game, do you understand why?

It is very logical from a machines perspective but very strange and unnatural from a humans perspective.

I will give you a few clues...

Piece activity above all else.

Rooks encourage Pawn advances.

The squares C4 and C5, for Pawn breaks that are supported by Rooks.

And of course, the obvious, the long diagonals for the trapped Bishops.

In chess White has a slight opening advantage.

For Fischer Random Chess I have often heard this argument before, just let both players play each side to make it "fair".

This suggests to me that there is a problem, but once again it is not the "obvious" problem that people often mention, that White has a significant advantage.

I have been working on my game for FIVE years.

If I have learned one thing it is this, if you change ONE thing you are probably going to break at least ONE other thing, and probably a LOT more things  

I no longer discuss the specifics of my game on any public forum on any website on the internet.

This is for legal copyright issues, the websites often have clauses in their legal terms and conditions stating that they can use, adapt, modify, blah, blah, blah, to infinity and beyond, any content that is published on their website.

On my profile I have a link to my blog for my game.

There are a LOT of changes in my game, it may be a bit of a shock.

You may not be interested at all, I have no problem with that.

The point I am trying to make is this.

Fischer ONLY changed the setup and NOTHING else.

If you change one thing it is certainly going to break other things.

You may skip everything on my blog except for ONE thing.

Pawns are the soul of chess.

Now that I have returned there will be a sudden and drastic reduction in the volume of spamming that occurs on this forum.

This has always been the case in the past and it will now be the case in the present, the past tends to repeat itself on this forum, again and again and again.

If I were a suspicious person I might start to think that people are getting PAID to do WORK on this forum.

Bump.

Any topic on this forum about Fischer Random or if you prefer "Chess960" is always ignored.

It has been this way for over a year now.

But this is the Chess960 forum?

I'm sorry for your frustration, but that's just the way how the forum is. 

Are you certain about that?

I refer you to the "Most Recent" window that is located on your right.