Talk:First-move advantage in chess/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Main page FA - good job, folks!

But just one query... wouldn't it seem somewhat logical to get somebody to pick a hand, each concealing a different colour piece, so that the odds of either side starting first are equal?

Meh, but enough about that, good work everyone. :) Master&Expert (Talk) 00:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood the point of the article. It is evaluating white and black after each side has been determined. Artichoker^[talk] 01:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Nice article. I have one question about Lasker's suggestion. ("Lasker suggested scoring less than half a point for a draw, and more for stalemating the opponent's king.") Since stalemate is a type of a draw, what does the first clause mean? Was he referring to a draw by agreement? --Lkjhgfdsa (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to post a similiar comment to the two above. Great job to the people who worked on this article. It was a joy to read and shows what Wikipedia can be at its best! ThemFromSpace 01:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

To address your question about Lasker's comment, I assume that he meant that a stalemate would count more than half a point and the other ways to draw (draw by agreement, threefold repetition, fifty move rule, etc) count less than half a point. The outcome of stalemate has changed several times, see its history: Stalemate#History of the stalemate rule. Bubba73 (talk), 01:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

Between 53% and 56% lie only 54% and 55%. Is this what is meant? Or does the writer mean "from 53% to 56%"? Otherwise stated "53% to 56% inclusive"? Amandajm (talk) 08:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

'scoring between 53 and 56 percent' not only 54% and 55% but 53.10% 53.76%, 54.22%, 55.07% etc. Interesting it's as low as 52.55% so the low figure I think would correctly be 52%. Will amend article to say this. SunCreator (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Perfect play resulting in a black win?

Chess players and theoreticians have long debated whether, given perfect play by both sides, the game should end in a win for White, or a draw.

Is it proven, as implied by this sentence, that the perfect game cannot result in a black win? I know it must be the least likely of the three results, but I always thought there was an outside possibility that black could force a win from the start? SteveRwanda (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, it's not possible, simply because if Black could do it, then White could do it first. 24.226.77.23 (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean like a 2 move checkmate? Clearly your reasoning is wrong; just because black can do it doesn't mean white can 'do it first'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.150.178.29 (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

In theory, it's conceivable that chess could be a win for Black with perfect play, but I know of no one who has ever argued that - that's why the sentence is written as it is. The range of positions has only encompassed (1) White wins by force (Adams, Rauzer); (2) White may win by force (Berliner); (3) White has some advantage, but not enough to force a win against best play (Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, etc.); and (4) White has essentially no advantage (Adorjan). I know of no one who's ever argued that (5) Black has the advantage or (6) Black wins. Krakatoa (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

'white advantage'

more elegant.--AaThinker (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

on the other hand, racists may enjoy it. --94.69.76.209 (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer

Former world champion Bobby Fischer notes that Black has also the equal chance to win and has not to begin for the Draw, but it only may take a little longer to! Ashayeri (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Ashayeri

Impact on tournament formats

Do Chess tournament formats try to ensure players have an equal number of games as black and white, and if so is this related to the First-move advantage? If so it should be mentioned in both articles. jnestorius^(talk) 03:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes they do, as closely as possible. See Swiss system tournament and Round-robin tournament for more details. Swiss system tournaments usually have an odd number of rounds. Usually every player (or almost every player) will have one color only one time more than the other color. The reason for an odd number of rounds is that with an even number of rounds it becomes practically impossible for everyone to have white exactly half of the time. So that would mean a difference of two. With an odd number of rounds, the difference is normally one. Round-robin tournaments balance it as closely as possible too. The same thing is true for matches. Bubba73 (talk), 05:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this should be in the article, not just the Talk: page, if you can cite it. jnestorius^(talk) 06:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

jnestorius raises an interesting point that it hadn't occurred to me to address in the article. It probably does deserve a mention. I had never realized what Bubba73 says about an odd number of rounds being preferred in Swisses - makes sense. I think it is pretty universally agreed that a double-round robin format is the fairest because there are no color issues at all - each player gets the same number of Whites and Blacks, and indeed has both White and Black against each player. Unfortunately, DRRs are only feasible with a small number of players. Even in single round robins with an even number of rounds there are color issues - for example, if some of the weaker players are "fish" whom the top players can probably beat with either color, a top player is happy to get Black against most of those players, and to get White against most of the other top players. In Swiss system tournaments, there are sometimes controversies where the only reasonable pairing pits two players who've had two consecutive Blacks against each other - meaning that one will necessarily get a third consecutive Black. (Of course, this sometimes this happens with two players, each of whom already has had two Whites in a row, but few if any players complain about getting too many Whites. And if such a player did demand that he get his due Black, his opponent would probably be happy to oblige, thus resolving the controversy.) Krakatoa (talk) 07:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a teacher's guide to a Norwegian chess textbook (from 1980) where the Monrad system (essentially a modified Swiss system used in Norway) is described, and which contains exactly the argument Bubba mentioned for having an odd number of rounds. If needed, I can provide the reference. Generally though, my experience with tournament play is that it is time allowances rather than fair color balance which determines the number of rounds. Most "long play" weekend tournaments I have played in go over five rounds because one round on Friday, and two rounds each on Saturday and Sunday make a reasonable schedule. However, almost all the quick (G/25) tournaments in Norway are arranged as six rounds over one day. (I have gotten the 2-4 color combo three times, but when you are sitting there playing you really don't notice it much. Also in a four round theme tournament (Albin Countergambit) I got a 3-1 color combo, scoring only half a point. With Black. Guess Adorjan is right...) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he should write a book for you: "White is busted, Black is OK!" :-) Krakatoa (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked at Official Rules of Chess (4th ed. 1993 - a little dated, but I doubt there are radical changes). There is a ton of stuff on color allocation, so I should have plenty to write a section on this. Krakatoa (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) I added a section on this a few days ago. See what you think. Krakatoa (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Dubious Breyer quote

I deleted the bit (which I had put in) about Gyula Breyer's alleged statement that after 1.e4, "White's game is in the last throes!" Alas, Edward Winter has shown that there is no evidence that Breyer ever made such a statement. Winter, Chess Explorations, pp. 172-73. Krakatoa (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Symmetrical game

I have a question regarding the symmetrical games / openings section. There is this game, Traxler vs Samanek, that lasts 16 moves and that finishes with White mating Black. The "nice" thing about it is that all the moves are symmetrical (except for the last one, obviously). Should this game be mentioned (because it shows in some strange way White's alledged first-move advantage) or not? Is it appropriate?

Seigneur101 (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's an amusing game, but I don't think it's too significant. All it proves is that it's stupid for Black to keep imitating White when it becomes obviously suicidal to do so. One could equally well cite 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 (the Parham Attack) Qh4?? 3.Qxh4 and wins. Krakatoa (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hatnote

I figured it would be non-controversial, but my addition of a hatnote to first mover advantage has been reverted without comment. Obviously no one will confuse "first-move advantage in chess" with First-mover advantage, but both First-move advantage and First move advantage redirect here. That's actually how I found this page, from the FMA disambiguation page, whose link I thought would point to my intended target but instead points here. I would appreciate some justification for reverting my change. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest First-move advantage in chess and First-mover advantage should both have hatnotes, linking each to the other. --Philcha (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a capital idea, but first we would have to make the hatnote stick here. :) Protonk (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I am the one who reverted the hatnote, on the thought that, as you mention, noone would land on First-move advantage in chess looking for First-mover advantage. I was not aware of the redirects. I would suggest to transform the redirects into disambiguation pages, what would you think of it ? SyG (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

They would be dab pages with just two targets, which is kinda a no-no. Mutual hatnotes is usually they way to go. I think some things should happen. first, the dab page should be updated w/ both targets (I'm off to do that right now). Second, we should determine if this or the other first move advantage is the 'primary' target. Third, we should figure out what, if anything happens to the redirects. Protonk (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I like SyG's idea. Why is a dab page with just two targets "kinda a no-no"? I see that Oliver Wendell Holmes runs afoul of this asserted kinda-proscription, and surely many others do, as well. Krakatoa (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, for cases like OWE and Al Roth you have one term which is associated equally with two things. Here we have two similar but not identical terms, First move advantage and first mover advantage. A hatnote would serve to point the reader toward the right page if they stumbled on the wrong page. Protonk (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be that Template:redirect3 would help. It would look something like:

"First move advantage" redirects here. For the business term, see First mover advantage.

Quale (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I might hyphenate "First move advantage" in the above, but other than that it looks OK. Krakatoa (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Either or, both First-move advantage and First move advantage redirect here. I'm fine w/ that change above generally. Protonk (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I added hatnotes on both articles. Protonk (talk) 06:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Section name italicization

Is there any reason why section 'Black is OK!' is italicized? It seems like a bias over the other section. |haosys| 20:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• It is italicized because it is a book title. Protonk (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Danelishen - not established as a reliable source

Someone with the handle "Phillidor", who is not a member of WikiProject Chess and whom I have never seen as an editor before, has added this reference to a 2008 book by Gary Michael Danelishen, The Final Theory of Chess, published by something called "Phillidor Press":

Gary Danelishen argues in The Final Theory of Chess (2008) that resolving the debate over whether White wins, Black wins, or the game is a draw in certain openings is both possible and practical given today's technology. Provided that chess researchers limit their analysis to opening systems which tend to lead to forcing lines where the opponent has limited options, (e.g., the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit), researchers can concentrate their efforts upon far fewer variations than would be necessary for many other highly fluid openings.

"Phillidor Press" is not a recognized chess publisher, and the fact that this edit was made by "Phillidor" (like "Phillidor Press", a misspelling of Philidor), suggests to me that the editor is Mr. Danelishen or someone else promoting this book. No basis is indicated for considering Danelishen a reliable source, and I can see none from the publisher's blurb at Amazon.com, for concluding that he is a reliable source. The United States Chess Federation website shows that his Elo rating is a very mediocre 1677. (Go here and put in Danelishen.) I also cannot find any reviews of this book.

The other people cited in this section of this article are recognized authorities on computers (e.g., the man who led the team that solved the game of checkers) and a chess Grandmaster. Absent a showing that Danelishen has similar expertise, I don't think he is a reliable source. If this contribution was made by Danelishen himself, as it appears, that is further reason for discounting it. See WP:COI. I am accordingly deleting the references to this book. Krakatoa (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. While I don't doubt that it's possible that a lower graded player with a decent computer and an idea can create a decent theory. The problem is to find a source independant like a review in a chess magazine. The additional WP:COI, makes this item unsuitable for wikipedia. SunCreator (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Text to images.

FA class articles now have alt text as standard. See WP:ALT for more.

Here is what I wrote about File:Wilhelm_Steinitz2.jpg - Steinitz.

"A grey scale image of a man aged between fifty and sixty-five looking to the left. He has a full length beard, oval glasses, his hair is ungroomed and he is going bald. He wears a three piece suit with the waistcoat buttoned up."

Simlar alt text are required for File:Evgeny_Sveshnikov.jpg and File:Vladimir_Malaniuk_2009.jpg. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:ALT is no longer a guideline at this time. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

unherent advantage

The editor who made this edit has a serious point. Why is it said that white has an inherent advantage? SunCreator (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Because it is an indisputable fact that in master games, White wins more than Black, and White moves first. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 04:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Adorján disputes it. Read what he says in the Black is Okay section in the article. SunCreator (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

First, is "unherent" a word? Next, I think the relevant policy here is WP:DUE, since most players and chess authors consider White to be a slight advantage which should not be given up without a fight, and a look in openings literature will show that. If you look at opening manuals, you see a clear difference between those written for White and those written for Black. When authors write for White players, they seek out lines which give at least "+/=", an "="-result is not a disaster but it is a bit lackluster. On the other hand, opening books written for Black end many lines with "=", and consider that a good achievement for Black out of the opening. Adorjan is a strong grandmaster, his books are well-known and his view merits coverage, but it is clearly a minority view. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC) (Who is looking forward to his first rated gamed with White in seven months tomorrow.)

Sjakkalle, you seemed to have misread my point. I didn't say change it to 'unherent', but questioned why we say it's an inherent advantage. SunCreator (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Which of the articles references claims the advantage is inherent? SunCreator (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want the exact word "inherent", I'm not sure. Probably none of them, but that is not a requirement either as Wikipedia authors are supposed to use their own words. (This is different from original research which means introducing their own ideas, this article does not do that.) The word "inherent" here means "forming a natural or inseparable part or quality of", so in this case it means that White's advantage comes from the very nature of moving first, and not some external factor favoring the first player. In contrast, if White starts the game with nine minutes on the clock while Black has one minute, we could say that the first player has a time advantage, but we could not say it is an "inherent advantage" (the advantage comes from the time handicap, not from moving first). If you absolutely want a source which calls the first-move advantage "inherent", I can for example refer you to the academic paper "Did the Soviets collude? A statistical analysis of championship chess 1940–1978", Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, by Moul and Nye, 2009, but as I said, I don't think this is necessary. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In chess the player that moves first has an inherent advantage because he gets to develop his pieces first and can attack first (usually). Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be fine if someone actually said that and it was given as a reference in the article, but from what I can tell it is neither. SunCreator (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I want to find a reliable source in the article that says the advantage is inherent or words to that effect. Saying there is an advantage is not the same, neither is saying there is a statistical advantage. The Moul and Nye journal piece is not sourced in the articles so that is not relevant. The lead sentence at this time seems to be original reasearch and also it does not seem to comply with WP:LEAD either. SunCreator (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, it took me about 1 minute to find this: "White can work patiently to hold onto his inherent advantage, usually by suppressing his opponent's counterplay and accumulating small advantages.", by John L. Watson, Mastering the Chess Openings, vol 1, p. 25. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And farther down in the same paragraph: "But most players aren't interested in giving away the advantage of the first move with such conservative moves and will choose to play more ambitiously." Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 21:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) That looks good to me. Moreover, the article (in the "White has an enduring advantage" section) quotes GM Larry Kaufman, in The Chess Advantage in Black and White, p. 1, who writes:

I don't believe that White has a forced win in Chess. I do however believe that with either 1. e4 or 1. d4, White should be able to obtain some sort of forced advantage that persists into the endgame. If chess were scored like boxing, with drawn games awarded by some system to the player (if any) who came "closer" to winning, then I believe that White would indeed have a forced win in theory.

Sounds like an "inherent advantage" to me. Krakatoa (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And the statistics are based on so many games it must indicate an inherent advantage for White. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 00:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see Adorján's scores broken down by black and white. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 02:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A little OR on chessgames.com shows Adorján as White scoring +209 =449 -66, i.e. 443.5/724 or 59.9%, and as Black scoring +198 =407 -136, i.e. 401.5/741 or 54.2%. Some might conclude from this that Adorján is full of it, though no doubt he'd claim that it was because his brainwashed opponents played wimpily as Black, or some such thing. Krakatoa (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a 5.7% difference in White's favor, instead of the usual 10% or so, so it seems that Adorján is relatively better with black than others. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 17:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, although it is interesting that there are 17 more games where Adorján was Black. It is possible that the difference is accounted for by Black wins taken from his "Black is OK!" books, and that those games would not otherwise be in the database. If that is the case, the selection of games is skewed a bit in favor of Black. I am just speculating, of course. Krakatoa (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

you are right - it is possible that the selection of games is biased. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 18:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Zugzwang Lite

Currently links to Lite. Could do with some clarity. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

White's 'extra move' can be a burden, and sometimes White finds himself in a mild form of zugzwang ('Zugzwang Lite') - Rowson

In that context it is a dictionary word so I've removed the link. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Familiarity factor?

I didn't see this factor mentioned anywhere: As published chess diagrams are always oriented to White's point of view, players who study books and magazines extensively will feel comfortable playing White, but upside-down and disoriented playing Black.

While perhaps not a major influence, it will always be there. Of course, chess problems and composed positions and endings almost always place the reader in White's shoes as it were.

Had the convention been reversed long ago, perhaps that would have mitigated the White advantage to a degree. WHPratt (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that is a significant factor. Anyway, it would need to be sourced and I've never seen it anywhere. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 15:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Adorjan actually talks about that sort of thing, and uses "Black-side-up" diagrams in his books to avoid any White-centric bias. Krakatoa (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I haven't seen any of his books. So there is at least one notable person that has considered it, so that can be in the article. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 23:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Adorjan on color bias. http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/BlackIsBad.htm WHPratt (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The modern view

I have some concerns with this edit adding

However, the modern view is that Owen's defense leaves black at a disadvantage, while 1. b3 is a move which is playable, if not particularly good for achieving an advantage. (John Nunn,Graham Burgess,John Emms,Joe Gallagher (1999). Nunn's Chess Openings. Everyman.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link))

I reverted the edit the first time it was made for several reasons, but primarily because it was an unsourced addition to an impeccably sourced article. Now it has a source, but other concerns remain.

1. The article was very careful throughout in attributing most of the stated opinion to particular players inline in the text. This addition seems to "correct" the earlier mistaken view of Staunton by making a claim for "the modern view". But only one source is cited, so this seems to be overreaching a bit. Even if not, it's a little out of place in terms of tone and style. It also seems an imperfect fit to the narrative in that section.
2. Although no page numbers are given in the cite, the relevant pages of NCO for 1.b3 are 8 and 10. I don't see anything in NCO that supports the claim made for 1.b3. The only prose in NCO about 1.b3 is "1 b3 (p.10) and 1 f4 (p.11) have developed the largest body of theory". NCO p.10 gives two main lines for 1.b3, evaluating one as +/= and the other as =. I think it exceeds the limits of no original research to make this sort of claim ("playable, if not particularly good for achieving an advantage") based on this cite. I don't think this is sufficient to make the claim.
3. The relevant page for Owen's Defence is p.123. It is not discussed in any prose at all, so the claim that it leaves black at a disadvantage has to be inferred from the evaluation of the variations given. In fact only one variation is listed in the book, although there are seven notes. The final evaluation is +/=, which is again only a slight advantage for white. "Slight advantage for white" is probably the most common evaluation found in NCO (and probably most opening books). I'm not sure that +/= is sufficient for the claim as black commonly plays defenses evaluated as slightly better for white. A better argument could be made if the evaluation was +/- (white is much better). Even so, this seems like an OR conclusion to me from this slight evidence.

I don't think this addition is really bad, but I'm not sure it improves the article in context. Since the article is very good, changes deserve extra scrutiny. Quale (talk) 10:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

More serious chess players will realise that the basis for the use of the reference are in the totality of lines (including notes, which are merely differently formatted lines) given for the two line "1. b3" and "1. e4 b6", which have been selected by the authors as being of critical importance. If you study these lines, you will come to the conclusion that in the first case, black is able to achieve a position that has been evaluated as equality against all white's choices (I should point out that this is the case for the majority of more mainstream opening lines as well). In the second case, white is able to reach a small advantage against the best of black's choices. With regard to the source being a single reference, it is an encyclopedic one, whose contents are a very compact summary of the more verbose and complete analysis to be found in the opening literature in general (plus some use of databases, but not much use of chess engines). I am a little puzzled by the fact that you first show that you know that "+/=" means "slight advantage for white" and then try to argue that "+/=" is not enough to show that a position is "slightly better for white". The two are equivalent. "+/-" is (as you stated) "much better for white", not slightly better. It would be a mistake to think of the "/" as meaning "OR". It simply doesn't - the notation only has a meaning as a whole. But of more relevance to this discussion is that NCO uses a modern typography, where "small advantage" and "large advantage" have special symbols rather than ones using the characters on a standard keyboard.

I should draw attention to the fact that the article, and these considerations, are principally about practical advantage, not game theoretical advantage. Real game statistics are an excellent way of measuring this practical advantage, and these have dramatically improved in the database era. It is a simple game theoretic fact that chess is either a forced win for one side or the other or a forced draw (in exactly the same way as tictactoe, connect 4, and checkers. Almost all of the assessments in books such as Nunn's chess openings fall into the category of practical advantage, and there is usually considerable uncertainty about the true game theoretical evaluation. A good way of looking at it is to think of "=" as a position that gives an expectation of about 50% to each player, "+/=" as being perhaps nearer 60%, and "+/-" as being 70%+. These numbers are very rough, but the concept is worth bearing in mind. 1. b3 scores 50.4%, rising to just over 51% for stronger players. This falls firmly into the "=" region. 1. e4 b6 scores very similarly indeed for white, so could reasonably be classified as "=" as well. The difference between this and the claim that "1.e4 b6" is advantageous to white might perhaps be explained by the extreme surprise value - white may be typically poorly prepared and black very well prepared, resulting in black navigating the opening better. The question is whether average preparedness should be taken into account in evaluating whether a line is advantageous or not. Elroch (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"Howard Staunton, generally considered to have been the strongest player in the world from 1843 to 1851,[125][126][127] made a similar point over 160 years ago, writing that Owen's Defense (1.e4 b6) is playable for Black, but that 1.b3 is inferior to "the more customary [first] moves, from its being essentially defensive".[128] However, the modern view is that Owen's defense leaves black at a disadvantage, while 1. b3 is a move which is playable, if not particularly good for achieving an advantage.[129]"

I agree somewhat with Quale but some way of rewording could be possible. The additional text is unclear to the point of having two completely contradictory meanings. You can read it that the modern view conflicts with the historic one or read again "black at a disadvantage" is still "playable for black" and "essentially defensive" is not inconflict with "not particularly good for achieving an advantage",so you could read from the text that the modern view and the unmodern view by Staunton are still the same! So it's not well written at all. Also the comparision historic vs modern is not in context here, Staunton words are in a practical sense and the modern view given by NCO is a theoretical one, so it's comparing apples to bananas. So for both the above reasons I've reverted as the additional sentence simply makes no sense. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It's possible that Staunton view was also theoritical so I've striked that part. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Elroch, I should have been more clear when I wrote "an OR conclusion". OR here is wikijargon for "WP:OR", or "Original Research", not the common disjunction "or". I'm familiar with +/−. It's just the linearized version of ±. The linearized versions are a lot easier to type, and it's too hard to find the Unicode characters for +/=, −/= and −/+. We can't draw conclusions from the "totality of lines" as that is original research. To claim that NCO is a supporting reference that "1. b3 is a move which is playable, if not particularly good for achieving an advantage", you have to show that Nunn wrote something resembling that. That claim can't really be supported with what's in NCO. Quale (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It is most amusing that you consider it original research to be able to read a tree of analysis and understand what it implies. It is also very amusing that people put forward the views of 19th century chess players as if understanding has not advanced in over 100 years. It's just as well that this isn't an article on a scientific subject. Elroch (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's just unfortunate that you don't understand WP:OR, but you are not alone. The "directly support the material as presented" requirement is most critical here. Quale (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on Elroch's explanations, I understand there are chess opening books that consider 1...b6 as +=. So to me the issue would be: does "+=" means that Black is at a disadvantage, or is it too small to claim anything ? If this is a wording issue, maybe we could phrase it as "However, the modern view is that Owen's defense leaves white with a slight advantage", to be closer to the opening book ? That being said, if 1.b3 is = and 1...b6 is +=, that means both moves are bad as they both induce a lower evaluation than before the first move ?

I don't recommend spending too much time on this. Is the article improved with the inclusion of that "modern view" sentence? In my opinion, no. At best it's neutral, and I think it's actually very slightly worse. Anyone reading this article dying to know more about the modern view of these openings can click on the links and read about it in their articles, where it belongs. Editorial judgment alone is a reason to omit it. Quale (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Quale's view. The current theoretical assessments of 1.b3 and 1...b6 are tangential subjects that don't belong in this article, especially since they are not materially different from Staunton's assessments. If today, unlike in Staunton's time, 1.b3 were considered an outstanding first move, that might well be worth mentioning - but it's not. Staunton considered 1.b3 a lackluster first move and most modern players agree. Krakatoa (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"Solving Chess" disputed.

I question the repeated assertion in this article that the first-move advantage in chess is, or ever will be, possible to determine via computational analysis. This is certainly an intractable problem, as generalized chess is an EXPTIME-complete game: it cannot be solved in polynomial time by a deterministic Turing machine. Given the search space required in a game of chess, a weak solution of chess is intractable. Even if quantum computing ends up providing fast computation for a new class of problems, there is no way to apply it to the hardest problems in EXPTIME.

This applies both the second paragraph (where it falsely suggests it is possible that chess may one day be solved by computer), and the section titled Solving Chess, where it implies "experts disagree", using the opinion of a chess player as an "expert" because he plays chess well. A chess player is not an expert in computational analysis. His point of view on what is possible with computers is irrelevant. If you can find a single mathematician or computer scientist who has published something indicating there will ever be a tractable solution to chess, feel free to provide it.

I've copied this general comment to the discussion board in the solving chess page (which seems to be just a partial copy of the information here). TricksterWolf (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. By any chance, would you have an authoritative, scientific source that says chess cannot be solved via computational analysis ? And could you please give me the source that says chess is an EXPTIME-complete game ? Thanks in advance ! SyG (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad: I just realised the sources are already in the EXPTIME article. I would say it is only "generalised chess" that is EXPTIME-complete, not the common, 8x8 version of chess, right ? SyG (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That's right, since complexity classes are only defined for series of problems (solving n×n chess, for any n), not for individual problems (solving 8×8 chess). And the fact of "generalized chess" being EXPTIME-complete has no implications whatsoever on the difficulty of solving the single instance of normal 8×8 chess. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but this is not the issue. I'm not saying that "8x8 chess is EXPTIME-complete", as any scope-limited problem has a constant-time or near-constant-time solution (just look up the answer in a table). What I'm saying is the problem is intractable because n is too high. The problem of "generalized chess" is not solvable for an 8x8 board because there are too many moves to check, no matter how fast or numerous computers get. Thus the problem is intractable. Computer scientists recognize that Euclidean traveling salesman will never be "solved" for n > 200 if P &neq; NP, and chess is far worse than this. The suggestion that chess may "someday be solved" is much like the suggestion "someday we may travel faster than light". TricksterWolf (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It is possible that chess will be solved by some proof that does not involve checking all possible moves. This seems very unlikely, but currently we just don't know. I find Rowson's opinion on the practical solvability of chess to be surprising, but it is cited and it is balanced by three opposing views. I think this satisfies WP:V and WP:UNDO, and the section is very well written. Do you have a specific criticism of this section, and a specific improved wording to propose? Quale (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely with your statement above. My main issue is with leading the paragraph on solving chess with Rowson's quote, when Rowson is not an expert in this area (being a chess player does not give you insight into the limits of computational analysis; humans play chess in a very different way from computers trying to solve every game). This section directly implies some experts believe a brute-force solution will be possible, and this is simply not true.

Granted, this page is not nearly as bad as solving chess is. But if you want to imply that the idea "chess may be solved by brute force" is controversial, you really need to note at least one computational theorist of note to make such a claim in the postmodern era. TricksterWolf (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Philidor

According to Traité des Amateurs, Philidor thought that the first move advantage was enough to win for White (with perfect play). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture in top right spot

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

After 1.e4, "White ought to win", according to Adams.

I suggest that the first illustration seen by the reader should be something that more immediately illustrates what the article is about, such as this one, which is now further down. It is difficult to illustrate the advantage. But this picture shows chess and a very commonn first move. --Ettrig (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Proof of no disadvantage?

Other than by solving chess, is there a way to prove that white is not at a disadvantage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.76.119 (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It may serve as an indicator for each player whether they ought to chase for a win or for a draw ? SyG (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Such a proof would constitute a substantial part of solving chess (by excluding one of the three possible outcomes in a perfect game). Of course, it would probably be the easiest part of solving chess. Still, even grandmasters occasionally lose with White... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

A way of removing white's advantage - does it belong in the article?

I came up with an idea which I quite like for countering white's advantage in chess - or more generally, the first player's advantage in any game where there is perceived to be one. Of course, playing two games is always the best solution, but sometimes that's impractical. It's an original idea, and I'm nobody in particular in the chess world, so I don't know if it's appropriate to put it into the article. Anyway, the idea is this -

• One player is the 'host', and they decide what white's first move will be.
• The other player chooses what colour to play. They either take white, accepting that move, or play black and respond to it.

Basically it's a variation of the old scheme for dividing a treat between two children - one divides it into two parts and the other chooses their part, motivating the divider to be as accurate as possible. In this case the game 'host' is motivated to choose an opening move for white that exactly evens the contest. I'm interested to know what more learned chess experts would make of this. To me it seems that the host is at a disadvantage if there are no moves that achieve the right balance - i.e. if all white's opening moves clearly favour either white or black. (My sense from reading the current article is that this would not be the majority view.) On the other hand, if there are many moves in the right 'neutral' territory the host could be seen as having an advantage, since they get to choose a move which they are experienced or studied in, giving them a headstart whichever colour they end up playing. 59.101.2.24 (talk) 10:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That idea is a good one but has been around for awhile, see Pie rule. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Your opinions don't count you dwarf...

I'm pretty disappointed by IM Silman's comments and their lack of substance and use of argumentum ad auctoritatem. Instead of addressing the issue at hand he attacks Berliner's intellect and conviction. If IM Silman has something interesting to say about the topic then it would be good to hear it. If all he can say is that Berliner's "betters" disagree with him then his comments should be left out of the article. Perhaps Silman wishes us to believe that he dwarfs Berliner. If not then he's simply hand waving at "others" who may disagrees with Berliner. The fact that Berliner is an IM, a former World Correspondence Chess Champion, and a professor of computer science at MIT should obviate any necessity of discussing his credentials and I'm surprised that IM Silman felt that this was an appropriate tactic.

In reality, it doesn't matter what the credentials are if his argument has merit. As far as whether White to Win is knowable or unknowable I'll take professor Berliner's experience and insights into chess and computational tractability over IM Silman's. Well, that's especially true because as far as I can tell IM Silman didn't address those critical issues. Berliner has actually written chess applications in the past so he does have some idea about it.

IM Silman's comments might be colorful but they shouldn't be presented as substantive counterbalance to Berliner's arguments. Does IM Silman make that comment of anyone who would dare to claim that 1. White to Move is winning? Does he say that of Sveshnikov? Rauzer? Where exactly would he draw the line and realize that his opinion about the qualifications of someone to comment on chess has no bearing on the merit of the individual's comments?

That is always the problem with argumentum ad auctoritatem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.205.55.139 (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Technically, Berliner was a professor at Carnegie Mellon, not M.I.T. He was also prominent in computer chess, constructing a special-purpose chess computer, "HiTech", that he credits in his book as helping him prove White's advantage.

The line (now in a footnote) about dwarfing Berliner, in context explicitly excludes Silman himself. From Silman's review: "My gripe is his lack of perspective, his iron conviction concerning his own deep understanding of chess, and the ease with which he dismisses the ideas and assessments of players who dwarf him (they also dwarf me and just about everyone else who isn't in the top 10) in all things related to chess." It should really be the full quote or nothing.

I agree that the criticism of Berliner, from Silman and others, should mention at least a couple of the lines that Berliner (mistakenly) evaluates as won for White. E.g., if Black is actually lost in the Orthodox QGD due to the Exchange Variation, why do so many top players continue to use it? --96.237.204.132 (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Quote

"In chess, unlike tennis, it is not possible to win by serving an ace."

– Irving Chernev, chess writer

Let me add ...

"When I am White I win because I am White. When I am Black I win because I am Bogolyubov."

- Efim Bogoljubov

WHPratt (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Fastest checkmate

The quote underscoring the article reminded me that Black can win actually faster than White. In 2 moves, that is. Assuming White goes for a complete give-away, of course:

1. g4 e5. 2. f4 Qh4#

Such a game of folly by Black can result in a loss only on the 3rd move, as White has to make an extra move - a3 or some such - to wait for Black to "open up"... By the way, I swear I really did a novice player in this way once.78.25.121.60 (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the recent NCO edit on Nimzovitch-Larsena and Owens

I have several issues with the recent NCO edit on the Nimzovitch-Larsen and Owens. Most importantly it ascribes views to Nunn that aren't explicit in his writing, based on the editor's interpretation of the symbolic evaluation of a very small number of lines in NCO. (Each opening gets only a single column [although NCO layout uses rows for variations], with a small number of side variations.) I think the editors interpretation is unwarranted. Nunn's evaluation of Owen's is "White is slightly better". White is slightly better is the most common evaluation in the book, and Black frequently adopts variations in which White is slightly better for reasons that are obvious to any experienced chess player. Translating +/= to "leaves black at a disadvantage" is very misleading in this context, and I think wrong. If addition is to remain (and I think it should be removed), the language must be changed to match precisely what Nunn indicates (White is slightly better), not the editor's spin. There are other issues too, such as calling Nunn's 15-year-old work "the modern view". It's a single more modern view, but that isn't enough evidence that it is the modern view. Staunton's opinion is attributed to Staunton, but symbolic evaluations of two obscure lines in a book that devotes little time to either are elevated to the modern view, which is also wrong. Finally evaluations of openings can change frequently, and I do not agree with editors scanning down the columns of NCO or MCO or similar sources and then making pronouncements on entire openings based on the evaluation symbols they find at the end. This is basically an original research or undue weight issue. As a final side note, I was disappointed that when I asked for page numbers in the cite the editor restored his edit without including the page numbers in the reference. I thought that to be rather rude. Quale (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is inaccurate to call 1.b3 = and 1.e4 b6 +/= the modern view. How many sources do you want to back up this tangential point? There are references given in the Owen's Defence lead for starters. Cobblet (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

"The current view" would be a more NPOV phrasing, "current" doesn't have the emotional implications of "modern". Also agree that "slightly better for White" is a more accurate reflection of the source. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

That isn't what the edit says, Cobblet. The source says "White is slightly better", the edit says "black is at a disadvantage". That isn't even close to an accurate reflection of the source. Second, the edit claims the modern view is different than Staunton's view. I think that's simply incorrect. Staunton did not say Black was equal in Owen's, he said "playable". As far as I know, +/= is often playable for Black. In this specific instance, I think Owen's qualifies as playable. If Black were not able to play any opening that might leave White with a slight advantage, there wouldn't be many defenses left. Third, Staunton also said 1.b3 is worse than other lines for White because it is essentially defensive, and I think that is precisely the modern view as well. NCO couldn't possibly be used to rebut the opinion that 1.b3 is defensive, because "=" says absolutely nothing about whether an opening is defensive, aggressive, neutral, or anything really. So the source doesn't contradict Staunton at all, despite the way the editor slanted the edit. Finally, unlike Staunton, NCO does not compare Nimzovitch-Larsen and Owen's directly at all. It's pure WP:SYNTH to concoct a comparison between these openings that the source does not make. The edit is poor. If you want to know how many sources I want, how about a source that 1) directly compares the two openings in question rather than being the product of editor synthesis, and 2) actually says something qualitative about the openings rather than the essentially quantitive and bloodless = or +/=. Quale (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I think MaxBrowne's latest edits (the ones made 24 hours before your latest reply here) have made the sentence more neutral in tone, and I believe both parts of the sentence as it stands now are verifiable and putting them together does not constitute WP:SYNTH. I agree though that NCO is not an appropriate source for either part of the sentence. Cobblet (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Max Browne's edits were made an hour after your odd initial comment, so unless you were commenting on what you knew would be the future state of the article rather than the edits that existed at that time, I don't understand what you're complaining about. Forgive me if you can or condemn me if you must, but I read your comment as applying to the article that existed at the time you made it, not the article an hour later after another editor smoothed some rough edges. I still think that the insertion doesn't improve the article at all, although it isn't terribly harmful. Not every verifiable statement is helpful or appropriate at every point in an article, and it can be a synthesis violation to combine two true statements (1.b3 = and 1.e4 b6 +/=) into a claim that the source doesn't make (NCO doesn't say that Staunton's view is incorrect.) The edit uses synthesis to imply that the modern view is different than Staunton's, and I don't think this is true. Even if it is true, you simply can't demonstrate that by looking at variation evaluations in NCO. I think sometimes Wikipedia editors try too hard to rescue bad edits. Sometimes the articles are better when bad edits are simply be removed entirely. Quale (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

My initial comment was in response to you questioning the facts presented, which I believe are verifiable; I did not dispute your other concerns with regards to NPOV and SYNTH. And I'm not complaining about anything, just pointing out that some of those concerns have been resolved since the initial edit. As it stands right now, I don't think there's any implication that the modern view is markedly different from Staunton's. Cheers, Cobblet (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to all those who have contributed to this discussion. There are some important points that should answer the sometimes slightly misguided questions that arose.

Firstly, NCO (and its predecessors such as Korn) is the analog of an encyclopedia to chess openings. MCO is another (multi-volume) example, but not on my shelf. Its contents are largely a summary of the conclusions of thousands of books on chess openings, supplemented by a database of all master games.

What NCO (i.e. its four authors) "says" is the evaluations it attaches to the lines. A strong chess player will realise that English is not necessary.

Secondly, considerable experience and use of NCO and others over the years means I realise something that some people here don't: that the large majority of critical opening lines are assessed by Nunn and his colleagues as equal. What this means is that although many lines give advantage to white, there is in most cases some choice of variations that gives black equality against all white alternatives. In some cases, black needs to tread a very narrow path, but it is only the dubious opening lines that leave black worse by force (in the sum total of the lines studied). [Checking this is made easier because the footnotes never overturn the analysis in the main lines in NCO: they rather offer alternatives that lead to the same or a worse evaluation for the side varying]. This is also what is found when all lines are analysed with modern engines.

As a result, the fact that black has no choice of lines in the Owen's where he reaches full equality (against best play by white) is significant, and identifies why top players do not consider the Owens a reliable defense. Elroch (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First-move advantage in chess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325220009/http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/5379 to http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/5379

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)