@ProgrammerAngrim But this isn't balanced either, because many players will join games, and then when they are given black pieces by random chance, they abort the game and continue to join until they get white. If they were penalized rating points I would be down with this. Instead they keep aborting until the get white, play white, and then abandon the room after they win or lose.
@TheLastKn1ght
I'm talking about Engines from 1997 ;)
I'm talking about Engines from 1997 ;)
@LDog11 It would be sexier because you will be playing more than 1 game against each person. You'll get to play 2+ this will mean you get to learn their their style and develop chemistry based on what they are doing. Nothing sexier in chess than fighting out with your opponent then altering your technique to crush theirs... 1 and done is so impersonal. If you crush me, I want a chance to rematch. If I crush you, I want to prove it a second time. 1 and done players bore me. Does that answer your question.
Also Sexier is a much better buzz word than funner ;)
Also Sexier is a much better buzz word than funner ;)
Eventually they would run out of people to play since they couldn't play the same opponent multiple times and get white each time. But it would be reasonable to extend it so that whichever player has the highest rate of playing white in the past would go as black this time.
@juliegirl1999 I don't know if it is just unrelated coincidence or if I read your initial post then started it, (can't remember which was first) but I've started playing more two game series by asking for a rematch sometimes. I wouldn't say any more than a third accept. I guess if I win I want to give the person a chance to beat me, and if they win I guess I give them a chance to beat me again. (oh no)
> [A l]ot of people are giving their opinion about a subject they haven't researched.
And Wikipedia is your idea of research? lol. As it happens, I have read a great deal about this. (Probably too much, TBH.) Not that it matters (ad hominem). But I also read that article you linked, and here are a couple of passages from it:
> Some writers have challenged the view that White has an inherent advantage. Grandmaster (GM) András Adorján wrote a series of books on the theme that "Black is OK!", arguing that the general perception that White has an advantage is founded more in psychology than reality. GM Mihai Suba and others contend that sometimes White's initiative disappears for no apparent reason as a game progresses. The prevalent style of play for Black today is to seek unbalanced, dynamic positions with active counterplay, rather than merely trying to equalize. Modern writers also argue that Black has certain countervailing advantages. The consensus that White should try to win can be a psychological burden for the white player, who sometimes loses by trying too hard to win. Some symmetrical openings (i.e. those where Black's moves mirror White's) can lead to situations where moving first is a detriment, for either psychological or objective reasons.
Also, mentioned in passing near the beginning, this gem:
> White's [alleged] advantage is less significant in blitz games and games between novices.
Which pretty much means everyone here, since the super GMs on this site tend to only play blitz (or faster), and most of the rest of us could be fairly classed as relative novices (or intermediate players, anyway). 🤷
It’s a legitimate topic of debate, of course. All I’m saying is I am unpersuaded that White is better. And FWIW, Wikipedia hasn’t changed my mind. 😉
And Wikipedia is your idea of research? lol. As it happens, I have read a great deal about this. (Probably too much, TBH.) Not that it matters (ad hominem). But I also read that article you linked, and here are a couple of passages from it:
> Some writers have challenged the view that White has an inherent advantage. Grandmaster (GM) András Adorján wrote a series of books on the theme that "Black is OK!", arguing that the general perception that White has an advantage is founded more in psychology than reality. GM Mihai Suba and others contend that sometimes White's initiative disappears for no apparent reason as a game progresses. The prevalent style of play for Black today is to seek unbalanced, dynamic positions with active counterplay, rather than merely trying to equalize. Modern writers also argue that Black has certain countervailing advantages. The consensus that White should try to win can be a psychological burden for the white player, who sometimes loses by trying too hard to win. Some symmetrical openings (i.e. those where Black's moves mirror White's) can lead to situations where moving first is a detriment, for either psychological or objective reasons.
Also, mentioned in passing near the beginning, this gem:
> White's [alleged] advantage is less significant in blitz games and games between novices.
Which pretty much means everyone here, since the super GMs on this site tend to only play blitz (or faster), and most of the rest of us could be fairly classed as relative novices (or intermediate players, anyway). 🤷
It’s a legitimate topic of debate, of course. All I’m saying is I am unpersuaded that White is better. And FWIW, Wikipedia hasn’t changed my mind. 😉
@pawnedge but the proof is in the Ratio! There have been 20,000 games studied and white wins about 52-56 percent of non-drawn games. That essentially proves my point. White has an advantage. That involves different players with different styles different time periods. If you were to bet n a random game were you knew nothing about the game or players and you could only choose the color, you would be more likely to win by betting on white.
White. Wins. More it's in the data!
White. Wins. More it's in the data!
52-56% is nothing compared to winning all games using computer cheating @juliegirl1999 new engines could beat engines from 1997 like they were normal players. A 2 game series should not be added because it's pretty much pointless. If you're a normal player then you will play almost exactly 50% white and 50% black. You can only play specificly black/white in challenges/casual games, types of games that don't reflect your true skill as a player.
@pawnedge
i can agree with what you are saying. but , lets take a classical game between 2 FM's. When someone is playing at that level,
wont that difference vanish?
i can agree with what you are saying. but , lets take a classical game between 2 FM's. When someone is playing at that level,
wont that difference vanish?
Although I'm not on board with OP's idea of implementing a 2 game series (not because it's not a good idea, but because of the implications of maintenance for the dev team), i'd like to add on the subject of white's advantage.
The advantage white has can be observed statistically. Given a large number of observed games, white tends to win a little more. That's observed in all levels of play, from patzers like myself to super GMs. Lichess has an opening explorer where this can be checked, from 1600s to masters' games. For every sound first move for white, white has slightly more wins than black, in all levels of play, in all time controls (granted I'm ignoring lichess games >2500 rapid and classical, as the sample size is too small and there seems to be a big disparity of ratings on the recorded games).
That's a fact. White wins slightly more. Why that is the case is something to be debated. It might be psychological, or it might be that moving first is in fact an advantage if you know what you're doing.
What can be also observed from the database lichess offers is that the percentage of draws increases as the level of play rises. My guess on this: chess is a draw with perfect play, white having a small advantage that black needs to equalize.
The advantage white has can be observed statistically. Given a large number of observed games, white tends to win a little more. That's observed in all levels of play, from patzers like myself to super GMs. Lichess has an opening explorer where this can be checked, from 1600s to masters' games. For every sound first move for white, white has slightly more wins than black, in all levels of play, in all time controls (granted I'm ignoring lichess games >2500 rapid and classical, as the sample size is too small and there seems to be a big disparity of ratings on the recorded games).
That's a fact. White wins slightly more. Why that is the case is something to be debated. It might be psychological, or it might be that moving first is in fact an advantage if you know what you're doing.
What can be also observed from the database lichess offers is that the percentage of draws increases as the level of play rises. My guess on this: chess is a draw with perfect play, white having a small advantage that black needs to equalize.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.