But how do you explain why the same players, when playing black, play so much better than when playing white? You've got to explain that if you're going to argue that white's first move advantage is decisive.
You said mostly what I was already thinking. If white goes first, and plays perfectly, even perfect play by black is not good enough. If two runners, of equal ability start a race, one starts first by a tiny amount, then the two running "perfectly" at the same pace will always result in the person going first winning. But like I said, I dont even know what perfect play is since I have never seen it. It's all guesses and speculation. If both sides ever did play perfectly this conversation wouldn't even exist, chess would be solved.
What I didn't know was the exact percentage that white wins. I figured it would be about between 51 to 53%. Some are saying it's as high as 55% which surprises me. That says to me that whites advantage is bigger than I thought origninally.Given that human chess players are terrible at chess, that's an impressive number. And even among computers supposedly white wins more often. And since computers are in their infancy it makes sense to me that over time white will win more often as computer, and people, get better. A thousand years from now maybe chess wont be solved. But I'll guess the computers a thousand years from now will have white winning more often than black, by a bigger percentage than even 55%.
You didn't answer my question. If white begins the game with a theoretical win, that means black begins with a theoretical loss. However, white ends up with a winning percentage of just 52% to 55%. If you're right that white's first move advantage is decisive, white's winning percentage should be 100% if both sides play perfectly. So white's imperfect play results in a winning percentage far lower than it should be. But why does black's imperfect play result in a winning percentage far higher than it should be? The same players play white and black! If white's first move advantage is decisive, obviously imperfect play by him could blow that advantage - but isn't white's imperfect play neutralized by black's imperfect play? If white starts out with a decisive advantage (a theoretically won game) and white and black play equally imperfectly, white should have a very high winning percentage - far higher than 52% to 55%.
I guess I didn't answer your question the way I should have. If white begins with the chances of winning at 52 to 55% isn't that a theoretical win? If a casino had chances of winning at 55% and 45% of losing wouldn't that be considered a pretty huge advantage? I think the reason white wins more is because people are terrible chess players. That and also because chess isn't solved, or played perfectly. If it were played perfectly, then white would win 100% of the time. But even computers dont play perfectly so probably more computer games are won by white I would guess. Maybe it just comes down to our opinions on what an advantage is. I think 55% is a huge advantage, you think it should be higher. We both agree white has an advantage, so what do you think whites winning percentage should be even with our current terrible level of play? 60%? More? Do you or anyone else know what the percentage of games won is by the world chess champion? I would think if it's around 55% that should be enough to win most tournaments. That to me is a pretty big advantage and I think over time as computers get better that number will rise until it eventually gets to 100%.
Computers will solve chess because the computing power will and continue to increase in the future. It's just a matter of time.
I agree. It won't be Alpha Zero though. Those folks have bigger fish to fry than solving chess. I'm wondering if (or rather when) they'll use that technology to try to solve mysteries like black holes, dark matter and dark energy.