This is an interesting post. I had never looked at my own performance, which turns out to be 60 5 16 white, 57 5 29 black. So twice as many of my defeats are with the black pieces, but my win ratio is nearly identical.
Lord only knows what this means. It is beyond dispute that at GM level playing white is a real advantage, so surely this means us mere mortals simply lack the skill to realise this advantage? So other more subtle factors must be at play with us - perhaps white tends to overreach in an attempt to force the play. Perhaps it is down to our style? I for one take great care with the black pieces as I always feel I am about to be clobbered. Maybe it is this basic?
Certainly in my case, having reviewed 5 randomly selected games with black, I won because white went for it with an innacurate attack.
Enjoyed reading the views of those better than me in this post.
This is an interesting post. I had never looked at my own performance, which turns out to be 60 5 16 white, 57 5 29 black. So twice as many of my defeats are with the black pieces, but my win ratio is nearly identical.
Lord only knows what this means. It is beyond dispute that at GM level playing white is a real advantage, so surely this means us mere mortals simply lack the skill to realise this advantage? So other more subtle factors must be at play with us - perhaps white tends to overreach in an attempt to force the play. Perhaps it is down to our style? I for one take great care with the black pieces as I always feel I am about to be clobbered. Maybe it is this basic?
Certainly in my case, having reviewed 5 randomly selected games with black, I won because white went for it with an innacurate attack.
Enjoyed reading the views of those better than me in this post.
Originally posted by PolicestateSo much I had to say it twice
This is an interesting post. I had never looked at my own performance, which turns out to be 60 5 16 white, 57 5 29 black. So twice as many of my defeats are with the black pieces, but my win ratio is nearly identical.
Lord only knows what this means. It is beyond dispute that at GM level playing white is a real advantage, so surely this means us mere ...[text shortened]... r it with an innacurate attack.
Enjoyed reading the views of those better than me in this post.
Originally posted by gaychessplayerIsn't that basically the point of the Larsen? (1. b3). The Larsen (which I play occassionally) gives White a slight edge in development but also puts them on defense.
Since databases containing millions of master games show White scoring about 55%, it is beyond doubt that White has an advantage of some sort. But is there an advantage of being White for amatuers?
Anyone who thinks that they're clearly better with Black than White should play 1 a3 as White, then play like Black for the rest of the opening.
In ...[text shortened]... ointed out that such an approach would cut the player's study time on openings about in half!
Originally posted by hammster21The whole, win with white draw with black thing is complete nonsense at the non GM level. The advantage white has is so insiginificant that its more or less even. However, I prefer to play with white because I know the openings better.
I am writing an article about what it takes to win with the black pieces. I'm sure many of you have come across people who only play as white. So I'm writing it to figure out how to win as black. I have some experience winning as black. I have a 53.3 winning percentage as white(not factoring in draws) and a 68.1 winning percentage as black(again, no draws ...[text shortened]... causes them to think this way. Any and all thoughts on this subject is greatly welcomed.
Hold up
"The whole, win with white draw with black thing is complete nonsense at the non GM level. The advantage white has is so insiginificant that its more or less even."
Are you saying that GMs are wrong? Are you saying that you know chess better than GMs?
Unless we have a Grandmaster in this forum agreeing with you, I don't think your claims are valid. It's very true that GMs are content with a draw as black, though many of them play for the win with the KID, Sicilian Dragon, etc.
Also, it's true that on the whole white wins more than black. It's simple logic. Grandmasters can exploit even the slightest advantage these days.
The first move may not seem very significant, but it is more than most think. The first move gains a space advantage and lead in development. The second may not seem as important but white often achieves a space advantage in most openings, that is enough have an advantage. Therefore, it's highly illogical for someone to win more with the black pieces than white unless they know their black openings better or their eyes are more adjusted to darker colors (what?)
Originally posted by RabbitColdI'm going to have to disagree with you. I think that psychology does still play a role in cc, its just not as prevalent. In this game Game 3589960 The position after move 24 was pretty even and should be a draw, I offered him one here and he refused. My opponent was rated 1850 at the time(higher then me by 250 pts) and instead of playing the board (which was a draw) he played the man(the lower rated one). I ended up winning not because I was a better player, but because I was willing to accept a draw while he was not.
I do not think psychology plays a big role on online chess. Especially CC. In OTB however, I think it has a tremendous effect on the game.
Psychology does play a role and I think its very noticeable with white vs black. As someone said earlier, Why don't more players play their black openings as white? I think its because they feel black is inferior, and also because really good chess players don't do it, so it mustn't be good.
Originally posted by chesskid001The advantage of the first move might be so irrelevant, that it only gives white an advantage in 1 out of 100 games. But it's still an advantage. In every sport everybody is looking for any advantage they can muster up. I don't know if it is worth going through all the trouble to try to find the smallest of advantages with it. An example might be the kings gambit. I've had many great wins, quick mates with it as white but I've also gone through some terrible, disgraceful losses as well. I think trying to gain a real advantage as white is possible, but it requires being able to stomach a lot of terrible losses along the way.
The whole, win with white draw with black thing is complete nonsense at the non GM level. The advantage white has is so insignificant that its more or less even. However, I prefer to play with white because I know the openings better.
Originally posted by ShinidokiThat's why White generally chooses to make moves in which it IS an advantage.
but that may not neccesarily be an advantage --
If white is first to initaite an attack then that also means he is first to show his plan, which may well give black the advantage, particually if white has started the attack with something potenically weakening (eg, pawnstorms leave unguarded squares in their wake)
not only that, in some openings ...[text shortened]... t particually helpful, an extra tempo is only handy if you can do something effective with it.
In my opinion main advantage of the first move is that you have more chances to get positions which you like to play and which you understand more than your opponent. Typical example is my excellent results in Sicilian 2.c3 line 1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.g3 in which black can get equal position, but I like to play these positions as white and I understand these positions much better than most of my opponents. As in result in that line I have victories against stronger opponents. (2 examples are in Thread 73015 ).
Originally posted by KorchIf this were true, why isn't the kings gambit more popular in the upper levels of chess. You get positions that are unique right from the very beginning. I think for the non-gm's its ok to play openings just to get into a position your familiar with but at the top level, is the opening really that important?
In my opinion main advantage of the first move is that you have more chances to get positions which you like to play and which you understand more than your opponent. T
Originally posted by hammster211) "unique positions" and "positions you like to play and which you understand better than your opponent" are not the same.
If this were true, why isn't the kings gambit more popular in the upper levels of chess. You get positions that are unique right from the very beginning. I think for the non-gm's its ok to play openings just to get into a position your familiar with but at the top level, is the opening really that important?
2) In top level opening is much more important than in lower levels.