this would have been a relevant comment in the 1800s, when this rule didn't exist in the world of chess. Either the black pieces or the white pieces could play first, it didn't matter to players at all. Then came a generation of German chess players who were also into scholarly pursuits. In the name of standardization they created a new set of universal guidelines for chess notation. And in the name of the pseudo science (social Darwinism, scientific racism) they invented the rule that white should play first. For decades, chess players outside of Germany resisted this change, no doubt arguing "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". But as imperialism and the colonization of Africa advanced, so did white supremacy and the rule stuck. Time to change it.
Chess Researcher/Historian Needed!
Agreed, i don't think the majority of people think of chess in racist terms. But if there's hundreds of millions of regular players and billions who have played the game globally, even a small minority equals millions and millions of people.
More to the point, this rule (which serves no purpose for the game) contributes -- in a subtle way -- to the normalization of racist ideologies and the perpetuation of stereotypes. But for a problem that is deep-seated within the psyche and subconscious, such as racism, these subtle cues are often enough to maintain deep-seated biases.
I'm not trying to please anyone. I'm trying to correct a historical wrong and change a racist rule
Thanks for the conversation by the way Hiram
I do have one question: say you're playing with the white pieces and your opponent wants to play first. They turn the board and switch the queens and kings (so that the black king is on e1 and white king is on e8, maintaining conventional notation). Would it be too difficult for you to transpose the colours in your mind so that you can continue with your favoured opening moves? Or would that be too difficult?
I'm not random people randomly seeing wrong in things; please don't use generalized cliché statements for a specific issue. I just gave several relevant historical and sociological reasons for my argument. Do you have any reactions or opinions to the specific reasons i gave above in this thread?
I do have one question: say you're playing with the white pieces and your opponent wants to play first. They turn the board and switch the queens and kings (so that the black king is on e1 and white king is on e8, maintaining conventional notation). Would it be too difficult for you to transpose the colours in your mind so that you can continue with your favoured opening moves? Or would that be too difficult?
If the kings were oriented the same, it wouldn't matter (as mentioned). Standardization in games in important, so everyone has the same understanding, discussions on the game can be had with no confusion, and game scores can be shared and produce the same results.
At this point however, there is the weight of hundreds of years and massive amounts of content, so any such foundational change is unlikely and likely counterproductive.
Hi Martin, yes the points you make about standardization are valid (discussions about the game, sharing game scores and notation) Thats why we have fixed positions for pieces and unique square names. But why should the colour of the pieces matter? I've played games with jade chess pieces, brown wooden ones, grey marble, red plastic ones, etc etc. Instead of "white" for the first move we could easily just say "first" and "second"
Surprisingly, it's not been that long. Only since the 1880s (the height of European imperialism, the carving of Africa etc) was this rule been followed in most tournaments. That's about 140 years. In the immortal game, Andersson-Kieseritzky 1851, Andersson played first with the black pieces. In Philidor's chess book, the most important text in 1700s France, there are many examples shows with black playing first.
I would disagree that it is a foundational change. For starters, children newly learning the game will have no problem adjusting to the new rules. Which leaves the current living, chess-playing generation. For chess brains thar can think many moves ahead, calculate complicated positions, recognize complex patterns -- surely a simple switch in colours would be an easy thing to do?
Martin, you mentioned that a rule change could be counter-productive. This is interesting to me. Can you elaborate?
Martin, you mentioned that a rule change could be counter-productive. This is interesting to me. Can you elaborate?
In the past, there was no standardization of which side moved first and this made opening notation and opening study unnecessarily difficult. It was centuries ago (roughly 1500s) that one side (the white pieces) were standardized to move first.
It think it is pretty obvious how much counter-productive work it would be to edit over 500 years of chess opening theory, notation and coming up with a better system. If the color bothers you specifically, then use a different chess set, or take up 4 player chess 
https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess
Martin, you mentioned that a rule change could be counter-productive. This is interesting to me. Can you elaborate?
Counterproductive as in changing for change sake, making it harder to use existing resources and causing confusion. White and Black are conventions and since that's the way chess has been talked about for so long, everyone that learns is getting a standard version.
A lot of rules are defined by light/dark of black/white, such as the queens on their own color and a white/light square on the right corner.
It doesn't really matter what color the pieces or board squares are, as you mentioned. As long as they are differentiated in some way and the setup is the same.
KeSetoKaiba, what is your source that this standardization happened in the year 1500? I have found many sources that this was a debate and process that happened from the 1840s to the 1880s. I have found no sources that says this happened in 1500. Please share your sources, thanks.
Martin, yes i think your reaction is natural and has some merit. However, this is not change for change's sake at all. I would say that there is a huge difference between using the words white-black, and using the words light-dark. This is because of the history of racism. As a person of European descent, perhaps the white plays first rule does not mean anything. But this is, in a way, white privilege. I know that for many people of African descent, this rule is a lingering reminder of the weight of racial oppression. A small reminder perhaps, but a significant one. (Please also read one earlier post in this thread about how racism works in subtle ways, through seemingly harmless stereotypes, microagressions, subconscious connections, etc)
KeSetoKaiba, what is your source that this standardization happened in the year 1500? I have found many sources that this was a debate and process that happened from the 1840s to the 1880s. I have found no sources that says this happened in 1500. Please share your sources, thanks.
I don't recall the source for that fact as I learned of this many years ago. What are your sources indicating 1840s to 1880s? Openings (and opening theory) was already studied (and named) centuries before the 1800s. If opening variations were named, then who moves first would have already been standardized I'm sure. If you want sources on earlier named openings, then Gioachino Greco was already compiling a collection of games (and studying openings) even during the early 1600s. In fact, one such opening he studied was named after him. This would be the Greco Variation of the Queen's Gambit. This variation arises after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e4 b5 4. a4.
An even earlier example of an opening being studied (and named) is the Spanish Priest of the 1500s, Ruy Lopez de Segura. It is after him we of course get the Ruy Lopez Opening/Spanish Game via 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5.
Of course, many other openings have old histories (recorded documentation centuries old), but I named these two variations because they are still common and played even today.
Hi KeSetoKaiba, so before the 1800s yes, a lot of opening theories had already been worked out. However white and black were interchangeable within the notation, which was not based on columns a-h. The notations they used back then were quite different and not standardized. For Ruy Lopez it may have looked like this: 1. KP (kings pawn) two (spaces forward). 1. KP two. 2. KN (kings knight) to KB3 (kings bishop column 3rd row) 2. KN to KB3, 3. KB to QN5 (queenside knight 5th row) and so on.
If you look at the actual documents from old games (not games where h the notations have been rewritten and transposed) you will see this is true. You can find a lot of these on the net. You'll also see that black played first 50% of the time; sometimes they wouldnt even mention who played black and who played white because it was irrelevant. Sometimes authors of chess books would keep a steady diagram of one colour on the top of the board and the other on the bottom for clarity; sometimes not. Not standardized
the source material: 19th century German writings on chess and society the project: is an academic paper on the evolution of the white-plays-first rule in chess. you can be a co-author on the paper. the initial research has been completed, but we need someone that can read and analyse 19-century German. thank you for your time!