It seems I remember reading a Fisher quote in response to a question about which side he preferred that went something like. . ." If I play white and play 1.e4. . . I will win, because I am Fisher. If I am black and answer 1. e4 e5. . . I will win, because I am Fisher." It seems that he didn't have a preference, or at least it didn't matter to him which side he played. He would win, because he was Bobby Fisher.
Grand-Masters Prefer Black
Sort:
I don't think so
While the rock-paper-scissors thing is an example, it seems it's not completely convincing because randomness is involved. But for examples of solved, non-random, perfect-information games with a forced win for the second player, you just need to look at Nim (with certain starting configurations) or Chopsticks (though only with that particular version of the splitting rules). Those are both games with absolutely no randomness involved, and perfect information from both sides; plus it's not obvious that having an extra tempo confers any disadvantage - yet the second player has a forced win. So it's not possible to say with certainty that Black does not have a forced win in chess.
Though I admit, empirical evidence does point overwhelmingly towards a draw with perfect play from both sides; with a forced win by White being the next most (but not very) likely option and a forced win by Black being least likely. There's far too little information to say it's impossible, though.
One only needs to look at their own record to answer this. For my corresp chess, I won 74% of the games as white and only 61% of the games as black. I'm pretty sure you would find similar results if you looked at top players as well... except with a lot more draws
Black is ok -- an article by GM Adorjan
Bobby Fischer once said something to the effect of, 'I started to really get good when I realized that when I had the Black pieces I should play to win'
and this is a quote from GM Adorjan's article:
"...Personally, I do prefer playing as Black, but this is the other extreme. I have invested so much time and energy into the rehabilitation of the Black side and the improvement of my Black repertoire that this way of seeing has simply permeated me. My repertoire is more ambitious, I play openings which suit my style better, and so on. BLACK IS OK means that everything is all right with Black, no more, no less and nothing else!"
Hi gang,
Go to 'Game Explorer' and look at the first page. It displays the % of white wins, the % of draws and the % of black wins for all of whites opening moves. In all cases white has better winning %'s. So, lets put that question away. White has an significant advantage, which has been proven!
The question here, is are there any master level players that perfer black. That is a hard question to answer. Probable so, just by weight of numbers. However, most chess masters are smart. They have play experience and they also can read and interpret the 'Game Explorer' percentages and understand what they mean. So, I say no. Except for a rare exception (and I have never heard anyone say they perfer black and certainly no master level players) no master level players perfer black.
Watch your back rank.
JG27Pyth wrote:
Black is ok -- an article by GM Adorjan
Bobby Fischer once said something to the effect of, 'I strated to really get good when I realized that when I had the Black pieces I should play to win'
and this is a quote from GM Adorjan's article:
"...Personally, I do prefer playing as Black, but this is the other extreme. I have invested so much time and energy into the rehabilitation of the Black side and the improvement of my Black repertoire that this way of seeing has simply permeated me. My repertoire is more ambitious, I play openings which suit my style better, and so on. BLACK IS OK means that everything is all right with Black, no more, no less and nothing else!"
Interesting article although it employs some apparently emotional terms. That the presumption of innocence applies in court does not mean that it has to apply in the game of chess. It seems logical enough to assume that the game should be a draw with perfect play... but the statistics show that the White scores better on every level above the beginner. (Btw in tennis also, which is mentioned in the article, the serve is not an advantage for beginners, it's even a disadvantage if you don't know how to serve.) Objectively probably the advantage of the first move is not enough to win, but it seems to give the White the ability to control the game in such a way as to exploit their strengths and cover their weaknesses.
tyzebug wrote:
While the rock-paper-scissors thing is an example, it seems it's not completely convincing because randomness is involved. But for examples of solved, non-random, perfect-information games with a forced win for the second player, you just need to look at Nim (with certain starting configurations) or Chopsticks (though only with that particular version of the splitting rules). Those are both games with absolutely no randomness involved, and perfect information from both sides; plus it's not obvious that having an extra tempo confers any disadvantage - yet the second player has a forced win. So it's not possible to say with certainty that Black does not have a forced win in chess.
Though I admit, empirical evidence does point overwhelmingly towards a draw with perfect play from both sides; with a forced win by White being the next most (but not very) likely option and a forced win by Black being least likely. There's far too little information to say it's impossible, though.
The problem is though, if there is a forced win for Black, then:
1. It will take 1000x longer to discover than a forced win for White, which is not likely to come anytime within the next 100s of years.
2. White could just avoid it, thus rendering any forced win(s) for Black to be useless. It'd be incredible to find that Black has forced wins against 1. e4, 1. d4, 1. c4, 1. Nf3, etc. White could just avoid any or all of these forced wins for Black by playing random openings like 1. a3, 1. a4, 1. Na3, etc. that will not lead to forced wins for Black.
And for other solved, non-random games with no hidden information, look at Tic-Tac-Toe. With perfect play, X "White" has a 100% win/draw rate against O "Black". Black obviously knows White's strategy, but is powerless to stop it. At best, with perfect play, he can draw.
American master Weaver Adams (author of White to play and win) claimed white had a won game after 1e4.
Ironically, he is one of a very few masters with a better score as Black.
padman wrote:
Ok fiveofswords, that's interesting, but all it proves is that in a pretty stodgy, locked-up position neither side has an advantage. The great thing about the standard setup is that there is such a scope for variety, so if you tried to level the playing field by reducing the scope of the game from the outset you would lose out on all that potential. We could do that in the following manner as well, but it would lead to very boring games.
And I disagree that in the standard setup both players have a bad position from the outset, because it's a contest and the position has to be evaluated relative to the adversaries. They are both equal at the start.
Padman, what 5 swords is trying to say is that both positions are bad because nothing is developed and there is no space, and it's up to both sides to improve their position. Relative to each other, obviously everything is equal except the first move.
Apr 15, 2010
0
#32
eXecute wrote:
Teimour Radjabov, I believe, prefers black.
Since he became the second youngest GM at 14, he has defeated Garry Kasparov during his reign when he was only 15---with black pieces. His peak rating was 2761 (#6 in world; jan 2009)
"In 2003, Radjabov defeated Garry Kasparov, Viswanathan Anand, and Ruslan Ponomariov with the black pieces. He is probably the first player ever to beat three former and reigning FIDE World Chess Champions with the black pieces in one year."
2003, Linares: "... famously defeated Kasparov with the black pieces, after a blunder, thus becoming the youngest player ever to defeat the world's number one player in tournament play."
No super GM prefers black.
Apr 15, 2010
0
#33
chessmaster102 wrote:
Nimzovitch always though of white and black as equal and nothing more.
and most openings named by him are defenses which means he had lot of study for black.
I would appreaciate any sources on that, I find it a little hard to believe such strong player thinks that way.
Well, leaving aside the GM level, I am personally a character who performs more efficiently once I am compelled to do something or when I have no choice left, whether it is Chess or otherwise.
The same principle applies, that is in my case, to Chess, where sometimes I feel aimless with white after the openning and as such makes blunders more often than not. When I am playing black , I get ideas, by seeing whites plans and possible chinks in his armour. There slowly develpes a plan for me.
But ,I say it again, this is at my level of Chess.
Apr 15, 2010
0
#35
So, to clarify on my earlier post, and to answer some replies:
I personally think that perfect chess is a draw, but that was not the original question, the question was, "does some high rated player prefer black?"
Suppose each player can make at most X moves until the game ends (white and black could start the game hopping around with knights for 49 moves, but then one of them would have to "break" and move a pawn, pawns can't move backward, and each of 8 pawns on 2 sides can move at most 6 times before promotion, so .... 49*8*2*6*14 (possible non-pawn-capturing moves that would allow a further 49 moves of hopping)*15(possible number of capturing moves each side can make after all pawns have been promoted, but still leaving King+QvsK) = X, it's a big number, I know, and the players would practically have to agree to hop for 49 moves in between every "real" move just to make the largest X they could. White plays 1. e4, big mistake, his number of maximum possible moves until End-of-Game is now X-ALOT (e3 would be less of a blunder *snicker*) The Computron 9000 can't solve chess, but it can think [X-½ALOT+1] moves ahead, with a standard Alpha-Beta Pruning function and all that other Wiz-Bang AI stuff that Rybka has.....
Obviously, Computron9000 will prefer black, since on almost any first move by white, it can evaluate all your future possibilities. It might only get a draw, but it's a CERTAIN draw. To C9000, the game is already over. But if forced to play white C9000 can't see all the way to the end; he's a couple nodes short. So he won't know what first move to make (esp if you turn off the opening book), he'll just have to "guess" like the rest of us.........maybe it plays 1. a4 and loses horribly?! (a programmer with a sense of humor for back doors....)
Please allow me to quickly bring to your attention a chess analysis wiki which is dedicated to publishing computer analysis of chess variations.
The Final Theory of Chess Wiki is an online encyclopedia of chess openings that anyone can edit.http://finaltheoryofchess.game-server.cc/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
My formal academic training is in the social sciences (B.A. Economics, M.S. Rural Sociology (May 2010)). I say this because I want to point out that I see a great potential in online collaborative communities and the concept of Commons-based Peer Production to aid in solving chess.
This chess project is certainly bigger than any one person. But with helpful insights from people like you and the additions of the creative abilities of people who join to contribute, significant progress will be made. It will take a very long time, but Moore's law, I suppose, is on our side.
Even if chess proves to complex to be solved in its entirety, this chess wiki project will still provide valuable information to those wishing to study opening theory.
Gary M. Danelishen
Webmaster | Final Theory of Chess Wiki Project
http://finaltheoryofchess.com/default.aspx
http://finaltheoryofchess.game-server.cc/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
DJHeilke wrote:
So, to clarify on my earlier post, and to answer some replies:
I personally think that perfect chess is a draw, but that was not the original question, the question was, "does some high rated player prefer black?"
Suppose each player can make at most X moves until the game ends (white and black could start the game hopping around with knights for 49 moves, but then one of them would have to "break" and move a pawn, pawns can't move backward, and each of 8 pawns on 2 sides can move at most 6 times before promotion, so .... 49*8*2*6*14 (possible non-pawn-capturing moves that would allow a further 49 moves of hopping)*15(possible number of capturing moves each side can make after all pawns have been promoted, but still leaving King+QvsK) = X, it's a big number, I know, and the players would practically have to agree to hop for 49 moves in between every "real" move just to make the largest X they could. White plays 1. e4, big mistake, his number of maximum possible moves until End-of-Game is now X-ALOT (e3 would be less of a blunder *snicker*) The Computron 9000 can't solve chess, but it can think [X-½ALOT+1] moves ahead, with a standard Alpha-Beta Pruning function and all that other Wiz-Bang AI stuff that Rybka has.....
Obviously, Computron9000 will prefer black, since on almost any first move by white, it can evaluate all your future possibilities. It might only get a draw, but it's a CERTAIN draw. To C9000, the game is already over. But if forced to play white C9000 can't see all the way to the end; he's a couple nodes short. So he won't know what first move to make (esp if you turn off the opening book), he'll just have to "guess" like the rest of us.........maybe it plays 1. a4 and loses horribly?! (a programmer with a sense of humor for back doors....)
A mythical computer that can achieve a draw 100% of the time: sounds eerily similar to the CRAP Cheater_1 used to pontificate about =/
The Theory of Dynamic Equilibrium has not yet been proven. Empirically, the results of Super GMs indicate that White has the advantage. I've never bothered to check, but I'm pretty sure engines score better with White as well.
It is true that a move like 1. d4 limits White's options. But you're forgetting the other side of the equation: it also limits Black's options as well. It only stands to reason that if you could program a computer to have the perfect response to any opening move, you could then simply imput the starting position as any of the 20 possible opening moves for White and have it calcuate perfectly against the 20 possible replies that Black has in order. A forced win for White might be in there somewhere. And then the computer could discard all of the opening choices for White out of the 20 that lead to a forced win for Black. Then the computer could play as White and have the option of playing all openings that lead to forced wins and draws.
In summary, program 20 different starting positions and let Black play as the new White. Then White could calcuate the perfect foil to any Black "opening". If lines lead to forced wins for Black, White can just discard that opening. Of course, none of this is actually possible, at least not for another several thousand years or so.
I score better with black against my computer, I think its because the openings I play as white are sharper and more tactical, while as black I play a little more conservative, and positional.
pvmike wrote:
I score better with black against my computer, I think its because the openings I play as white are sharper and more tactical, while as black I play a little more conservative, and positional.
That makes sense... "sharper more tactical" games have never been computer's strong suit.
tyberius wrote:
It seems I remember reading a Fisher quote in response to a question about which side he preferred that went something like. . ." If I play white and play 1.e4. . . I will win, because I am Fisher. If I am black and answer 1. e4 e5. . . I will win, because I am Fisher." It seems that he didn't have a preference, or at least it didn't matter to him which side he played. He would win, because he was Bobby Fisher.
The vast majority of chess players do not feel White’s initial half-move advantage is sufficient for a win. Robert “Bobby” Fischer once said: "I think it's almost definite that the game is a draw theoretically."
Neat Discussion
On a side note checkers was solved after years of computation to be a draw.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/1144079
DJHeilke point about rock paper sissors is a good one about information and game theory. If information is required to win, white will make some type of delaying move to gain information on blacks strategy. To counter Black may also play a delaying move, but this can not continue. So in the event information is required to win game theroy would state make moves that do not commit your strategy but stop the opponet from also making waiting moves.
I think we see this sometimes with Nc3 or the Najordf.
This is why chess is so much fun
Interesting fact about checkers.
The thing about chess though is that information does not equate to a win. It's not like Rock-Paper-Scissors where if you throw 1. e4 (Rock) and your opponent can use this information to strategically throw Sicilian Najdorf (paper) and claim an auto win. Or if you throw 1. d4 (scissors) and your opponent throws 1. d5 (also scissors) then it's automatically a draw. As Elubas pointed out, just because you know that after your opponent plays something like 1. e4 that he plans to develop pieces quickly and towards the center, control the center, and open up the game in order to exploit his spacial and temporal advantages, doesn't mean you can automatically stop him just because you know his strategy and what moves he's likely to play.
As GM Larry Evans said, "The better player always wins; it just takes longer with Black."
And another famous player said something like, "There are no bad chess openings, just bad players."
The theory, unless chess is mythically "solved", is that it takes mistakes, not information, from the opposing side for you to win.