Points should be different for white compared with black

yes. me. by 12%. 12% is a lot.

But you cannot count how much of a practical advantage white has. And it's really subjective (Someone might only be able to win with white, at a certain level maybe it doesn't matter the color). And there is no way to make it that exact. It's 100% if someone gets some games with white and some games with black

My win rate with White is higher, but nearly all of my best games were with Black.

I think this depends on the openings you play right? Like the Najdorf is extremely sharp and allows this kind of stuff

Yeah... I think it also depends on your style. I have this weird counter-attacking style, that works best if I've first lured my opponent off-balance before I shift to the counter-attack.

I understand the psychological advantage white has in moving first. So it makes sense that advantage could be turned into more wins, on average. But are computers so advanced now that they also can use a psychological advantage against other computers? On average, computers playing other computers have white win more. 

Did you not see the point about computers? Computers don’t have emotions (yet).

I think I'm more prepared with black than with white... so I believe your claim is unfounded. If not, direct me to a study or other resource from which you have drawn this conclusion.

The internet says when computer play against other computers, white wins more often than black. I'm sure it takes into account playing strength and ability. Even two human players with identical ratings don't draw every game. They win more with white too. 

There have been many discussions about the advantage of moving first.  The question here is should points be different for human players because of the first move advantage. It's more than psychological, because even computers win more with white. So the advantage is real (which is probably WHY it's psychological). 

It just seems to me alternating colors is a good way to mitigate that advantage. There already exists other rules also, such as the black tie equals win with white having more time. That seems to work too. Another option might be the childhood cake sharing method. That's where you cut, I choose. So one side starts with white, plays a number of moves, but knows black has the option of trading sides. With all those options I don't think there needs to be a separate scoring system. 

If it's +.35 elo according to stockfish, and the game is played with best moves, wouldn't it be white m3298477 or something? +.35 elo means draw unless black blunders... right?

i have won as black before

No dip sherlock.

Yep. It's been so long since I've played in a competitive tournament that alone probably wouldn't make much difference. But I don't see the point in doing it, since the first move advantage for white is already addressed pretty well, I think. 

Is this topic going to turn into another "is chess a sport?"

or another "is chess a draw?"

Gross

The way things are set up in tournaments and online is that each player eventually gets to play black and white an equal number of times, so it comes out in the wash. No real need to change the system.

Failed logic. The same bad argument could be used to defend not changing +/- points based on rating. "Just shut up, eventually it evens out." But every site does change the +/- points based on rating, and rightly so. Increasing white's effective rating when calculating +/- game points is the correct conclusion. Everything else at this point is wasted words.