hi i understand, or at least perceive that it is better or slightly advantageous to start as white, however, statistically i seem to do better as black. this got me to wondering, could this be an indication that i, as a player are more suited to playing defensively, knowing this would really help as i am undecided at present whether to go in for tactical lines or positional ones, any advice or personal experience in this regard most appreciated, regards Robert.
Hi robbie - where yah been?
I too have high score with Black - difference is quite noticable.
Chess players tend to have a better knowledge of their openings
as Black than they do there white openings.
You often see players going on and on about French defences,
Caro Khans - Sicilians, Latvians (guilty), Pircs etc.
Rarely do you hear Ruy Lopez Rules.
So these are where they are at. This is what they know the most.
I certainly know more theory about Black defences than I do with White.
As Black - they have strolled into your defence so you score better.
Finally (and I really don't mean to be unknid to anyone).
Having played over loads of games on this site.
White is not an advantage to your average RHP player.
They move first and so they are usually first to blunder.
They come up with an idea after two or three moves,
(some of them are quite ingenious)
But the idea turns out to be bad and their position never recovers.
Originally posted by greenpawn34hi greenpawn dude, was at Scone palace on holiday, they were excavating the place trying to find the remains of an old abbey torched in the reformation, loads of dug up corpses lying in ditches, full skeletons, the kids loved it.
Hi robbie - where yah been?
I too have high score with Black - difference is quite noticable.
Chess players tend to have a better knowledge of their openings
as Black than they do there white openings.
You often see players going on and on about French defences,
Caro Khans - Sicilians, Latvians (guilty), Pircs etc.
Rarely do you hear Ruy Lop ...[text shortened]... them are quite ingenious)
But the idea turns out to be bad and their position never recovers.
played this kid from Edinburgh over the board, said he used to be in chess club at school but hasn't played for five years, got beat 4-1, not even generous lashings of Laphroaig could numb the pain, however i could not believe it when he played the Morphy vs Count Isouard and the Duke of Brunswick game move for move, to actually play a game mimicking the great man was overwhelming, like you say with your other correspondence, all the chess clocks in the world stopped and the spirit of Morphy stood above me whispering moves into my ear, ahem, anyhow, you are just the guy i need to encourage me.
Pawn dude, I recall in a similar correspondence that you gave a reason why our strength dips when we try to assimilate knew ideas into our play, this is happening to me at the moment, have been tanked by all and sundry, however the ideas are sound and have increased my over all understanding but as yet have not translated themselves into advantages, anyhow, why is this the case?
and secondly do you think that it is wise to have a chess hero, to mimic their style moves etc or that we are better off trying to develop a style of our own - regards Robert.
I also play better with black, and I don't know much opening theory.
With me it's just that with white I feel pressure to attack and tend to try to force things. With black I just play very defensively, wait for my opponent to over-commit, and counter attack or play for small edges like a pawn up or better pawn formation and then try to consolidate for a winning end game.
The former is more fun, but the latter is more effective chess.
Originally posted by sh76Hi, thats incredibly interesting, and if i am not mistaken youre comments suggest that generally it seems that there may be some mechanism that prevents us from being truly objective, as you say white 'feels he 'must' attack, he 'must', try for an advantage because he does after all have the, 'advantage', although what that is remains a mystery to me at present, anyhow, like you say, our opponents by virtue of being white often over extend themselves, or go in for dubious attacking strategies and like the greenpawn dude states make the first big mistake.
I also play better with black, and I don't know much opening theory.
With me it's just that with white I feel pressure to attack and tend to try to force things. With black I just play very defensively, wait for my opponent to over-commit, and counter attack or play for small edges like a pawn up or better pawn formation and then try to consolidate for a winning end game.
The former is more fun, but the latter is more effective chess.
I have to admit that there seems to be some reverse psychological comfort in being black, like 'hey im black', 'im expected to be at a disadvantage, the pressure is on white to prove his advantage', like the Scotland football,'soccer', team, they always seem do better as the underdogs, its all incredibly interesting, and although i understand that its good moves we should be interested in, not psychology, i don't think that anyone can deny that there is some kind of psychological process also going on, consciously or otherwise - regards Robert.
If you haven't already done so, then try to get (and read!) a copy of 'Chess for Zebras' by GM Jonathan Rowson. It's sub-title is 'Thinking differently about Black and White'.
He has some excellent ideas about why we play differently depending on which colour we are, and although at times he is a very 'intellectual' writer, he conveys most of the important ideas in a very accessible way.
I'm re-reading it again just now and thoroughly enjoying it.
Playing openings reversed never seem quite the same.
Everyone has heard of and fears the Dragon Bishop.
Who has ever heard of the might g2 Bishop.
I know when I get a pure Layvian reversed - that is a Latvian with
no added tempo.
1.e4 Nf6 2.f3 e5 3.f4!
It does not 'feel' right - it's odd.
Anybody know why White goes moves first in chess?
The story I have heard is relevant to this thread.
Originally posted by greenpawn34This is what I was told, but it may be rubbish:
Anybody know why White goes moves first in chess?
The story I have heard is relevant to this thread.
When two players had a match against each other, one would have the white pieces for every game and the other the black pieces. Which side moved first would alternate.
This caused disagreement between players as sometimes each one would want his "lucky" colour. In particular there was a match played with a fancy chess set in which the black pieces were much more attractive, so everyone wanted to used those.
The solution was to alternate which colour pieces each player had as well as which side moved first, and it follows that the player with either the white or the black pieces would always move first.
I don't know why they decided that it would be White who moves first.
Have you seen that chess sketch on youtube? A very large black actor entered a chess tournament and whenever he was Black (as opposed to black!) he would sit down opposite his opponent and make the first move. Obviously his opponent would complain, saying that White has to move first, and the actor would then feign anger and accuse his opponent of being racist! It's very funny.
Close Fat Lady - mine has a few more details but lucky colour
appears in my explanation as well.
I read this in an old chess book years ago.
In the 1830's in the London chess club the pieces were White and Red.
At that time White did not move first - this can be proved from the
London - Edinburgh corres match 1824-1828.
Edinburgh were given Black and the move - so the real Scotch Gambit
as seen by the Edinburgh players in 1824 looked like this.
The London club secretary was fed-up with players arguing as to who had
the favourite red pieces.
(White being deemed cowardly - white flag and all that stuff)
so he made a rule.
If you want the red pieces (today's black) then White will have the first move.
This seemed to work and the white moves first rule was accepted and adopted
in London and Paris.
Cannot vouch for it 100% - perhaps Edward Winter is the best to ask.
Originally posted by greenpawn34wow the legendary Edinburgh chess club, i thought it only existed in folklore, myth and legend, peace be upon it for ever and ever.
Close Fat Lady - mine has a few more details but lucky colour
appears in my explanation as well.
I read this in an old chess book years ago.
In the 1830's in the London chess club the pieces were White and Red.
At that time White did not move first - this can be proved from the
London - Edinburgh corres match 1824-1828.
Edinburgh were given ...[text shortened]...
in London and Paris.
Cannot vouch for it 100% - perhaps Edward Winter is the best to ask.
Oh it exists all right.
http://www.edinburghchessclub.co.uk/
I was live in caretaker there for 5 years. (1977-1982)
I had chess 7 days a week 24 hours a day. My Daughter was born there.
Happiest five years of my life.
It's haunted by a real friendly ghosts.
Sometimes about 2-3 in the morning you would hear these footsteps in
the playing room. You would go in and see all these famous postions
from famous games set up on the boards.
Once someone took a picture of me playing a game.
When it was developed there was seen an old gentleman with a
beard standing behind me with his hand on my shoulder.
He's here now...he's asking me type this..
HELP ME...PLEASE HELP ME...FINISH THE GAME I WAS PLAYING...
Capt Benjamin Spooner Briggs.
Brrrrr! It's dead weird when that happens - no idea who Briggs is.
Anybody want to google it for me.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Captain of the mysterious "ghost ship" Mary Celeste. Briggs, his wife Sarah Cobb Briggs, their 2-year-old daughter Sophia, and seven crewmates, sailed from Massachusetts on November 7, 1872, bound for Europe with a cargo of commercial alcohol. Less than a month later, on December 4, the ship was found sailing erratically off the coast of Gibralter. Crew from the DeGratia boarded the brigand to investigate. They found the last entry in the ship's log, dated November 24, which indicated that the voyage was uneventful. The sails were furled and the ship was in excellent condition. In the infant's crib remained the impression of a sleeping child. However, no sign of the crew or the Briggs family was ever found. A cenotaph memorializing the family is found in Evergreen Cemetery, Marion, Massachusetts. The inscription reads, "Capt. Benj S. Briggs born Apr 24, 1835, Sarah E Cobb his wife born Apr 20 1841, Sophia M, their daughter, then 10 mos, born Oct 31, 1870. Lost in Brig Mary Celeste Nov 1872", its sending shivers down my spine already.
Oh it exists all right.
http://www.edinburghchessclub.co.uk/
I was live in caretaker there for 5 years. (1977-1982)
I had chess 7 days a week 24 hours a day. My Daughter was born there.
Happiest five years of my life.
It's haunted by a real friendly ghosts.
Sometimes about 2-3 in the morning you would hear these footsteps in
the playing ro t's dead weird when that happens - no idea who Briggs is.
Anybody want to google it for me.