starting with white

But it is also a business...or at least attempting to be a viable one.  And as a business owner I can tell you that the customer is almost always right.  When I go into a restaurant, I order what I want.  If I want a steak, I get it.  The waitress doesnt veto it and say "no, you'll like the chicken better, plus its good for you".

Try going into a pizza place and ordering a steak, and see just how right you, as a customer, are. That's what you're trying to do here.

Alternating colors is the way chess is played. Welcome to the game. If you want to only play one color, play against a computer program.

Mike,

You got me curious by one of your posts, alleging that you have a higher win rate as white than as black.

Quote:  "But I'll save you the trouble of researching my last 50 games and just tell you Im better with white....I would know afterall."

Apparently, you do NOT know afterall.

My puzzlement centers around this:  how can your rating stay below 1200, if you actually have been winning more as white, while playing mostly whites for the past 50 games.   So, .... curious, I looked at your last 50 games.

     You played exactly 2 games of non - live chess.
you lost both, and your provisional 'rating' would be 800 if rated by the USCF system.  as it is, under glicko, you are rated only 1038.

in live chess,
out of last 50 games,  In one of them, you played with a time control of 10 minutes, making it in a different rating range than the 25 to 30 minute games you seem to prefer.


Overall:  your opponents averaged (post game with you average), 1090.   Your current rating:  1087.


You won 27 games and lost 23.

of the 37 games you played with white, you won 20 and lost 17.   This gives a win rate of 54%.

Of the 13 games you played with black, you won 8 and lost 5.  (this includes the one 10 min game you lost).

excluding that one (for this calculation alone), leaves 8 wins and 4 losses - so you have a 67% win rate with black.

that seems to refute your allegation of winning more with white.

Now, to lend a little significance to the numbers:

let's look at the higher/lower rating level post game, for you and your opponents.

In overall, (50 games),  your opponent's ratings ranged from a low of 887 to a high of 1495.

In games where you played 'down'  (opponent was lower rated, post game),

 in 19 games you were higher rated.    You won 15 and lost 4.   as expected.


  Of these, you had white 14 times, black 5 times.

with 14 whites, you won 12 times. (this would be expected, playing lower skilled (lower rated players).    85% win rate when playing lesser skilled players when you have white.

   With 5 black, you won 3 out of 5.   60 % win rate when playing lower rateds when you have black.

while the number is a little low to draw a valid conclusion, if this ratio holds out, statistically, you are doing just about as well, black or white when playing lower skilled players.

   That refutes your allegation as well.

you played in one game, you were equal to your opponent (post game rating), although you did win this one.

and in 30 games, you were lower rated.

Of these 30 games, you lost 17 and won 13, as would be expected if your rating is close to accurate.


Your opponents ranged in rating from 951 to 1495, with an average rating (post game) of 1142

Of these 30 games, you had white in 21 of them, and only won 7, for a .333 win rate when playing higher rated people, when you have white.when you had black, playing higher rated people, you won 5 games, out of 9, for a win percentage of 56%.

and that would refute your allegation as well.

while 50 games is not a terribly high number, it is significant that your results tend to match most closely whether you are playing higher rateds or lower rateds (each of you performs, more or less, to the average of your ability, as would be indicated by rating).

that your win percentage with black, when playing higher rateds is nearly double your win percentage with white when playing higher rateds, seems to make your allegation somewhat specious - that you do better with white.

that you win the majority of games with white, when playing lower rateds, is expected, but also somewhat specious, when considering how close behind your win rate is with black when playing lower rateds.

overall, for 50 games, i'd say:  YOU ARE DEAD WRONG on your allegation of winning a lot more with white.


regards,

posted as a user, not as a representative of this site.

It is not fair for people to be able to choose their colour because this has a detrimental effect on other users. They get more games as black because ''i play white'' games are paired with random colour games.

Exactly, Chessy4000, exactly why Erik decided to change the standard to make all play randomly (computer) selected color assignments, and no one can now choose the color they play.

(( unless, of course, they choose to challenge a particular person and select the color they want to play....   but then, of course, no one is obligated to accept individual challenges.))

yeah, but who cares, right? i mean, it's all about ME and what "I" want, and MY freedom to choose, and MY interests. how that impacts other people... i haven't really considered it, and frankly, i don't care. if I want to be white all the time, and that causes everyone else to be at a slight disadvantage, that's not my problem. it's the same reason i shouldn't have to throw my trash in the garbage can. i just toss it on the ground because 1) in the scheme of things what's one candy bar wrapper on the ground, right? and 2) someone else will probably eventually pick it up for me. 

 Dude you have way too much time on your hands.  Your "scientific study" is gargabe, and proves nothing.  Even if it did prove that Im better with black it would disprove the argument that you have to play with both to get good. 

Maybe I try harder with black because i feel inadequate at it.  get a life

You are inadequate at life.

AnthonyCG, I too teach children chess - and they learn to take facts and deal with them, because you cannot dispute facts.

Unfortunately, there are some who refuse facts and instead attack the person who is armed with facts, (particularly when they don't like their idea being destroyed with facts.)

oh well, I've been attacked by that type of person before, it isn't going to build his character to attack those who are armed with facts.

    he is, basically, unarmed and defenseless (and wrong).

oh yes, any statisticians wanting to verify my summary analysis, feel free to ask, I'll send you the excel file I used, and you can compile/examine/review facts as you wish.

  message me privately and give me your email address to send it to.

LOL.   I'm assuming if you were wrong the decider would have said something :p.

Frankly I like random play a lot better than pick a color play anyways, so this change makes me happy.   Even the "but I want to practice an opening" excuse is terrible.  I could want to practice my ruy lopez till the cows come home, but if black doesn't play 1... e5 I'm never going to get that chance.   You wouldn't (or at least I hope you wouldn't) suggest it's not fair your opponent isn't playing the moves you want him to make would you?

Let this be day #1 where you play with black then.

The learning curve will be great! :)

~Jerry~

Oooh, do me, do me!

(Joke.  Don't waste your time.)

I'm glad to see the change will be staying then.

as others said: 

in rated games it makes sense to randomly generate the sides... (but not by letting you play 100 games with black now if you played 100 games with white prior to the new rule-change)

but in unrated games it should be the two players who decide what side they want to train at this very moment

I don't really see the problem, people can't just stick with white or black all the time,  if you were playing somewhere else and you always played white but you had to play black, you might not know how to defend, I like the random chooser since it gives me a good style of play, don't want to just stick with white or black all the time.

as I said, he made an allegation - that looking at his last ten games was an insufficient sample, and that was right (statistically speaking).  looking at his last 50 games was a number he chose to toss on the table for verification of his allegation, and I was bored, and took it as an opportunity to revive a little of my formerly well connected neurons - in an analysis exercise just for fun.

no, I won't waste my time doing yours, you can if you wish.  But I did find it a little fun to work with, since the facts invalidate his allegation - totally.

    the one additional step I thought about doing, was to look at the 'delta' of difference between his rating and his opponent's ratings, in the games he won as white - etc - but that would be 'too much time on my hands'...   and I wasn't that bored.

   after looking at serious analysis of his last 50 games, instead of admitting he was wrong (adult response), he immaturely attacked me for taking the time to actually look over his last 50 games and soundly refute his allegation.

    he really would do well to consider some other outlet for his energy, maybe bingo would be his 'challenge'.  (he can have the 'color' of his choice without regard for others then.)

i HAVE SUBMITTED MY COMMENT, BUT i DONT SEE IT