First-move advantage in chess is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 21, 2009.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 3, 2008 WikiProject A-class review Approved June 16, 2008 Good article nominee Listed June 27, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Chess FA‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is in the list of selected articles that are shown on Portal:Chess.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 300 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The lede opens with the sentence, "The first-move advantage in chess is the inherent advantage of the player (White) who makes the first move in chess," which is a definitive declaration that White has an inherent advantage. However the article which follows then makes it quite clear that there is no definitively proven, inherent advantage for White, with many theorists and players - some of them former World Champions and 2 of them the greatest players of all time - disagreeing with the conjecture. The second sentence immediately starts to back down from the initial declaration by saying that "Chess players and theorists generally agree that White begins the game with some advantage." We've gone from a definitive, inherent advantage for White, to a wishy-washy general agreement about "some advantage." Even that is deceptive though because the implication that all chess players and all theorists agree on this advantage is patently false; as a full reading of the article demonstrates. The third sentence backs away even further and makes an unproven, cause and effect claim that the supposedly definitive, inherent advantage for White is proven by the statistics when in fact:

1. The statistics can be interpreted in a different way - as is invariably the case with statistics - to show that this definitive, inherent advantage leads to White winning a little more than a third of the time; which certainly doesn't support the claim of a definitive, inherent advantage at all.

2. As shown in the main body of the article, there are other possible explanations for the statistics, such as the definitive, inherent advantage for White being nothing more than an unfounded, self-fulfilling prophecy which is nothing more than players believing White has an advantage and having that unfounded bias affect their play.

The bottom line here is that it is by no mean proven that White has a definitive, inherent advantage and the article should reflect that, rather than starting with the assertion that White has an advantage - as though it is a fact, which it is not - and presenting contrary views as being dissenters; which they are not. You wouldn't start an article about Vaccination with a claim that it causes autism, then present the evidence that it doesn't as a dissenting view; an example I use because Vaccination is an excellent example of statistics being used to prove a cause and effect relationship where none actually exists, exactly as the statistics are used here to 'prove' White's advantage. Neither should this article - or any article for that matter - start by presenting an unproven claim as true, then provide evidence to the contrary as a dissenting view. If a conjecture is unproven then it should be presented as such, with evidence for and against it then presented equally so that the reader can make their own determination. Doing otherwise, as is the case with this article, immediately predisposes the reader to believe the unproven claim is factual, then biases the evidence so that the dissenting view must provide stronger evidence just to be equal; which is ironic, given the nature of the article!

;-)

A patient, dispassionate, objective reader will come away from this article with the understanding that there is no definitive proof that White has an advantage in Chess. However a less patient and objective person who only reads the first few sentences will come away with the erroneous viewpoint that White has an advantage in Chess. That viewpoint is unproven and therefore wrong and, as such, the article needs to change. FillsHerTease (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to start changing the article to reflect that White having an advantage is an unproven conjecture - with arguments on both sides - if no one objects. I don't want to waste my time if it's just going to be reverted obviously, so I will leave this for 1 week and if no one has objected I will start making updates after that. FillsHerTease (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The lead did appear to over-state the case that White has a definite advantage, at least when judged by the available references. For the time being I slightly rephrased the opening statement, and added two citation-needed tags.—LithiumFlash (talk) 03:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. The article was better before your changes. The claims in the lede are more than adequately referenced in the detail sections of the article. Quale (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC) BTW, "drawn with best play" and "White has an advantage" are not mutually exclusive claims or in conflict with each other. The article explains this in detail. Quale (talk) 05:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not have statements synthesized by Wiki editors, and bold statements require reliable references. The article currently does not have any references to support the statement "...the consensus has been that a perfectly played game would end in a draw."—LithiumFlash (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Did you read the article? The First-move advantage in chess#Drawn with best play section has citations saying chess is a draw from Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Fischer, Fine, Rowson, Adjoran, and Watson (also quoting Kasparov). If you're not going to read the article you should not edit it or tag it. Quale (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article expresses a sampling of other opinions but it is certainly not a consensus. The lead should not state that there is a consensus (chess being a draw) when there are already sections in the article expressing other possible endings of perfect play. The lead should be both concise, and accurate. It is very misleading to tell readers that there is consensus when in fact there is none.—LithiumFlash (talk) 05:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you don't understand what "consensus" is. Consensus does not require unanimity, and opinions held by a small minority do not prevent consensus. Also, you are just wrong here. Adams and Berliner thought White had a decisive advantage, but they knew that their opinions were in the minority and were against the consensus that the game is probably a draw. They recognized that there was a consensus, they didn't agree with it, and so they said so. Quale (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And while I'm here, Stack Exchange is not a reliable source for claims about chess. It's essentially a wiki and has the qualities of a self-published source. Stack Exchange answers may cite published sources to bolster the writer's argument, and those sources may be useful in Wikipedia. But really I wish drive-by editors would stop trying to fix this article because it ain't broke. Nearly every "improvement" to this article in the past four years has made it worse. I'm not saying the article is perfect and can't be improved, but virtually none of the people who have felt compelled to put their stamp on this article is as knowledgeable about the subject or as skilled a writer as the original author. The result is that their help has not helped.

Also, once again, please read the article before trying to improve it. There is already a section in this article on solving chess, and it is titled "Solving chess". Astonishing, I know, you could never be expected to find that. That section is well cited. The lede is supposed to summarize the article, so don't put new claims in the lede. Look to the article body and summarize it in the lede. If something about solving chess needs to go in the lede, it should be a very brief summary of the most important parts of the Solving chess section. But while we're here, the lede is already a good summary of the article and it doesn't need to say anything about solving chess. First, it's obvious in context that chess hasn't been solved or there would be no debate over whether White or Black has an advantage. The mere existence of this article implies that chess hasn't been solved. Also, we already have a whole article for that: see Solving chess. Quale (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LithiumFlash, it's beyond ironic that you would tag the article as having unreliable sources. The only unreliable source that was in the article was stack exchange, and you were the one who added it. The article was better before you insisted on trying to "fix it". Quale (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree w/ Quale in all respects. --IHTS (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion continues in the next section "Chess has two players, White and Black" and then to "Yet another disruptive edit".—LithiumFlash (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To my understanding neither arguments not theorists disagree that white has some advantage, even it is just psychological, as that one is very important in chess. If this advantage is real, the article is giving arguments if this is sufficient white to win and if various perceptions of black playing for draw are supported by facts. So I do not see the first sentence wrong, it states a general opinion and then argues for and against it. Because, regardless, it is still a prevalent opinion that white has some advantage. 46.250.214.3 (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are very little purely math investigations in chess and computer chess. Even though a lot of algorithms were invented and implemented, the reasoning in computer chess is still human, we have incorporated our perception about chess in computer as well. A very simple test will convince you about that. Play 1. a3. This move means not much for white, so this moves does nothing more than reversing white for black. If white had any advantage it is now in hands of black. If you run the most sophisticated engine or look into any theoretical book, it says that this move is bad because white has wasted one move. But, theoretically that should not matter that much in case black and white are equal or close to equal, just as many authors claim. Additionally chess is about history. The main advantage of computer chess is a quick access to the libraries, but these libraries are human, so we are teaching computer to play more or less faster than us, to think faster. The only detailed investigation done on purely math level is retrograde analysis, especially endgames, where computers are able to analyze each position and find wining combination or prove that it is draw. If we take this as how computer would play chess, we would see that our vision of chess would fall apart, there is a way these endgames are played that we cannot comprehend, they cannot be remembered or reasoned or explained, they are just purely the effect of the connections between mathematical positions in chess. So this article is missing that analysis, and I think I can find a few good sources, I am just not certain if these are talking about advantages of black and white, since endgame is more of having a tempo than about purely black and white playing first long time ago. But, article is written by human, so I guess these are still human opinions after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.250.214.3 (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1.a3 is not as good a test as you might think. If Black plays ...d5 or ...e5, the a3 move can often be useful (just think about how often ...a6 is played by Black in KP or QP openings). Probably better for Black to adopt a KIA setup (lame source but IM). Double sharp (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK here is a proper source: Djuric, Komarov, and Pantaleoni's Chess Opening Essentials, Vol. 4. Page 239 (on 1.a3): "it is essential to remember that ...a6 is fundamentally a reactive move that prepares counterplay on the queenside in openings where White has already taken possession of the centre. The problem here is that it is impossible to have counterplay if the other side is not attacking you." On those grounds they recommend the not-so-sharp replies 1...Nf6 or 1...g6, which make 1.a3 look a bit pointless. But I would also point out that if Black is not doing the attacking (which is needed to make 1.a3 look silly), then he's not exactly making full use of the first-move advantage handed to him. Double sharp (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About 2/3 of the article with that name has been copy-pasted here. It’s only tangentially related to the subject matter of the article, and if kept, I propose it be summarized by a sentence and linked to the other article. It’s duplicate info with no sufficient purpose here. Sbalfour (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the information flow was in the opposite direction, Solving chess was created in 2010 by copying text that was in this article first. Quale (talk) 07:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please substitute the cite https://web.archive.org/web/20140708102445/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/thesystem.pdf for the dead link in footnote 83? Thanks! Krakatoa (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Silman's review in footnote 84 is also dead. Can someone try to use the Wayback Machine to save it? Thanks! Krakatoa (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

eg https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/37673/why-dont-these-statistics-disprove-whites-supposed-larger-practical-advanta Thewriter006 (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. This article is not concerned with chess variants. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(1/2) says who? and also, calling fischer's chess a 'variant'. lol. ok. i suppose we should treat 9LX the same as crazyhouse even if 9LX already has recognition from FIDE. Thewriter006 (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that chess960 is anything other than a lightly-played modern variant is very strange. --JBL (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(1/2) really then why was magnus carlsen 'deeply ashamed' https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/nov/08/chess-magnus-carlsen-deeply-ashamed-wesley-so-defeat-random-world-final-oslo and https://lichess.org/forum/team-fischer-random-chess-center/world-fischer-random-champion-should-automatically-be-part-of-the-candidates and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTJ100arAbw ? Thewriter006 (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me what you think this has to do with anything. --JBL (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think magnus would be 'deeply ashamed' if 9LX were 'a lightly-played modern variant'. additionally, check out 2021 chessdotcom move of the year. it was from wesley so's 9LX game against MVL https://www.chess.com/news/view/2021-chesscom-awards-winners#move there wasn't like a separate category for 9LX moves or anything. Thewriter006 (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Jun Mizutani and Mima Ito lost the World Series of Beer Pong, it would not elevate the game to some higher status, no matter how ashamed they were of it. Chess is a game that has been played competitively for centuries, whose rules are known by millions of people, for which major events receive coverage in mainstream media worldwide, and which serves as an idiomatic reference-point in phrases like "eleven-dimensional chess". In comparison, Chess960 is a lightly-played variant that hardly anyone has heard of and which lacks any cultural significance. It is my impression that you think this state of affairs is unfortunate (and maybe you are right), but your feelings (and Magnus Carlsen's opinion about his loss) doenot change the reality. --JBL (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So Magnus would've been 'deeply ashamed' of losing to Wesley in say crazyhouse? bughouse? chessboxing? golf? tennis? Thewriter006 (talk) 05:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Chess960 is a lightly-played variant that hardly anyone has heard of and which lacks any cultural significance.' --> Then why is Magnus quitting WCC but playing WFRCC? Thewriter006 (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While that’s true at present, if reliable sources exist for a discussion of first-move advantage in other chess variants, I think this is one possible location for a short summary of such (though maybe the main discussion should be in the article on chess960). —JBL (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(2/2) why don't we just say eg statistics in computer chess and computer 9LX show an X increase in white win from Xa to Xb but a Y decrease in white win relative to black win from Ya to Yb? Thewriter006 (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using what reliable sources to support that? Above you posted a stackexchange thread, which is user-generated content. Analysis of statistics with no secondary coverage would fall afoul of some mixture of WP:OR and WP:DUE. --JBL (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(2/2) true. but some part of some of the stackexchange posts is based on an actual data. hypothetically if i could get a better source? Thewriter006 (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel that, if there are two high-quality sources, it could be appropriate to add a short section to this article. (It is possible that other editors will disagree, of course.) I see that the article Fischer random chess already has a brief discussion (with two ok-but-not-great sources), and it might be natural to expand or improve the discussion there first, assuming better sources exist. --JBL (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'brief discussion' --> on white's advantage? which part please? the 'theory' ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess#Theory Thewriter006 (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is the subject of two or three sentences of the section on theory, alongside the discussion of opening strategy. --JBL (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU Thewriter006 (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the editors of this page refuse to remove a "quotations" section despite the fact that such sections have no place on wikipedia per various policies and guidelines, I've taken a closer look at the article and determined that it does not currently meet the fA criteria. Some of the sources do not appear to be high quality RS as required, with dodgy internet sites such as [1][2] being cited, as well as likely outdated sources such as [3]. Also, the citations are a mess, with various formats used and not all books with appropriate identifiers and page numbers provided. All of these things would have to be fixed to avoid FAR. (t · c) buidhe 08:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]