El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.
The first-move advantage in chess refers to the inherent advantage of the player (called White) who makes the first move in chess. Chess players and theorists generally agree that White begins the game with some advantage. Statistics compiled since 1851 support this view, showing that White consistently wins slightly more often than Black, usually scoring between 53 and 56 percent. White's winning percentage[1] is about the same for tournament games between humans and games between computers. However, White's advantage is less in rapid games and in games between weaker players. Chess players and theoreticians have debated whether, given perfect play by both sides, the game should end in a win for White or a draw. Since at least 1889, when World Champion Wilhelm Steinitz addressed the issue, the overwhelming consensus has been that a game of chess should end in a draw with best play. However, a few notable players have argued that White's advantage may be sufficient to win: Weaver Adams and Vsevolod Rauzer claimed that White is winning after the first move 1.e4, while Hans Berliner argued that 1.d4 may win for White. It is possible that computers will eventually resolve the debate by determining the correct outcome of a perfectly played game of chess. Some players, including World Champions José Raúl Capablanca, Emanuel Lasker, and Bobby Fischer, have expressed fears of a "draw death" as chess becomes more deeply analyzed. To alleviate this danger, Capablanca and Fischer both proposed chess variants to renew interest in the game, while Lasker suggested changing how draws and stalemate are scored. Since 1988, chess theorists have challenged previously well-established views about White's advantage. Grandmaster (GM) András Adorján wrote a series of successful 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 as the game progresses, for no apparent reason. The prevalent style of play for Black today is to seek dynamic, unbalanced 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. Moreover, according to game theory, playing second may be advantageous because White has to reveal his hand first. Some openings are thus considered good for Black but less so for White, because White's extra tempo allows Black to adjust in advance to the opponent's plans. Some symmetrical openings (i.e. those where both players make the same moves) can also lead to situations where moving first is a disadvantage, either for psychological or objective reasons.
[edit] Winning percentages
In 1946, W.F. Streeter examined the results of 5,598 games played in 45 international chess tournaments between 1851 and 1932.[2] Streeter found that overall White scored 53.4% (W38.12 D30.56 L31.31).[3] White scored 52.55% in 1851–78 (W45.52 D14.07 L40.41), 52.77% in 1881–1914 (W36.89 D31.76 L31.35), and 55.47% in 1919–32 (W36.98 D36.98 L26.04).[2] Streeter concluded, "It thus appears that it is becoming increasingly difficult to win with Black, but somewhat easier to draw."[2][4] More recent sources indicate that White scores approximately 54 to 56 percent. In 2005, GM Jonathan Rowson wrote that "the conventional wisdom is that White begins the game with a small advantage and, holding all other factors constant, scores approximately 56% to Black's 44%."[5] International Master (IM) John Watson wrote in 1998 that White had scored 56% for most of the 20th century, but that this figure had recently slipped to 55%.[6] The website ChessGames.com holds regularly updated statistics on its games database. On August 8, 2007 the database contained 441,854 games. White won 36.78%, 36.58% were drawn, and Black won 26.64%, resulting in a total White winning percentage of 55.07%.[7] New In Chess observed in its 2000 Yearbook that of the 731,740 games in its database, White scored 54.8% overall; with the two most popular opening moves, White scored 54.1% in 349,855 games beginning 1.e4, and 56.1% in 296,200 games beginning 1.d4. The main reason that 1.e4 was less effective than 1.d4 was the Sicilian Defence (1.e4 c5), which gave White only a 52.3% score in 145,996 games.[8] Statistician Jeff Sonas, examining data from 266,000 games played between 1994 and 2001, concluded that White scored 54.1767% plus 0.001164 times White's Elo rating advantage, treating White's rating advantage as +390 if it is better than +390, or −460 if it is worse than −460. He found that White's advantage is equivalent to 35 rating points, i.e. if White has a rating 35 points below Black's, each player will have an expected score of 50%. Sonas also found that White's advantage is smaller (53%) in rapid games than in games at a slower ("classical") time control.[9] Other writers indicate that there is a positive correlation between the players' ratings and White's score. According to GM Evgeny Sveshnikov, statistics show that White has no advantage over Black in games between beginners, but "if the players are stronger, White has the lead."[10] An analysis of the results of games in ChessBase's Mega 2003 database between players with similar Elo ratings, commissioned by GM András Adorján, showed that as the players' ratings went up, the percentage of draws increased, the proportion of decisive games that White won increased, and White's overall winning percentage increased.[11] For example, taking the highest and lowest of Adorján's rating categories, of 1669 games played by the highest-rated players (Elo ratings 2700 and above), White scored 55.7% overall (W26.5 D58.4 L15.2), whereas of 34,924 games played by the lowest-rated players (Elo ratings below 2100), White scored 53.1% overall (W37.0 D32.1 L30.8).[12] Adorján also analyzed the results of games played at the very highest level: World Championship matches. Of 755 games played in 34 matches between 1886 and 1990, White won 234 (31.0%), drew 397 (52.6%), and lost 124 (16.4%), for a total White winning percentage of 57.3%.[13] In the last five matches in Adorjan's survey, all between Anatoly Karpov and Garry Kasparov, White won 31 (25.8%), drew 80 (66.7%), and lost 9 (7.5%), for a total White winning percentage of 59.2%.[14] Chess Engines Grand Tournament (CEGT) tests computer chess engines by playing them against each other, with time controls of forty moves in one hundred and twenty minutes per player (40/120), and also 40/20 and 40/4, and uses the results of those games to compile a rating list for each time control. At the slowest time control (40/120), White has scored 55.2% (W34.7 D40.9 L24.4) in games played among 35 of the strongest chess engines (as of June 22, 2008).[15] At 40/20, White has scored 54.6% (W37.4 D34.3 L28.3) in games played among 160 engines (as of June 22, 2008).[16] At the fastest time control (40/4), White has scored 54.5% (W39.5 D30.0 L30.5), in games played among 114 programs (as of June 22, 2008).[17] [edit] Drawn with best play
Joseph Bertin wrote in his 1735 textbook The Noble Game of Chess, "He that plays first, is understood to have the attack."[18] This is consistent with the traditional view that White, by virtue of the first move, begins with the initiative and should try to extend it into the middlegame, while Black should strive to neutralize White's initiative and attain equality.[19][20][21] Because White begins with the initiative, a minor mistake by White generally leads only to loss of the initiative, while a similar mistake by Black may have more serious consequences.[22][23] Thus, Sveshnikov wrote in 1994, "Black players cannot afford to make even the slightest mistake ... from a theoretical point of view, the tasks of White and Black in chess are different: White has to strive for a win, Black—for a draw!"[24] Chess theorists have long debated how enduring White's initiative is and whether, if both sides play perfectly, the game should end in a win for White or a draw. George Walker wrote in 1846 that, "The first move is an advantage, ... but if properly answered, the first move is of little worth".[25] Steinitz, the first World Champion, who is widely considered the father of modern chess,[26][27][28] wrote in 1889, "It is now conceded by all experts that by proper play on both sides the legitimate issue of a game ought to be a draw."[29] Lasker and Capablanca, the second and third World Champions, agreed.[30][31][32] Reuben Fine, one of the world's leading players from 1936 to 1951,[33] explained that White's opening advantage is too intangible to be sufficient for a win without an error by Black.[34] The view that a game of chess should end in a draw given best play prevails. Even if it cannot be proved, this assumption is considered "safe" by Rowson and "logical" by Adorján.[35][36] Watson agrees that "the proper result of a perfectly played chess game ... is a draw. ... Of course, I can't prove this, but I doubt that you can find a single strong player who would disagree. ... I remember Kasparov, after a last-round draw, explaining to the waiting reporters: 'Well, chess is a draw.' "[37] World Champion Bobby Fischer thought that was almost definitely so.[38] Lasker and Capablanca both worried that chess would suffer a "draw death" as top-level players drew more and more of their games.[39][40] More recently, Fischer agreed, saying that the game has become played out.[41] All three advocated changing the rules of chess to minimize the number of drawn games. Lasker suggested scoring less than half a point for a draw, and more for stalemating the opponent's king.[39] Capablanca in the 1920s proposed Capablanca chess, a chess variant played on a larger board and with additional pieces.[42] Fischer advocated Fischer Random Chess, another chess variant, in which the initial position of the pieces is determined at random.[43][44] Today some of the sharpest opening variations have been analyzed so deeply that they are often used as drawing weapons. For example, at the highest levels, Black often uses the Marshall Attack in the Ruy Lopez, a line where Black sacrifices a pawn for strong attacking chances, to obtain an endgame where Black is still a pawn down but is able to draw with correct play.[45][46]
In 2007, GMs Kiril Georgiev and Atanas Kolev asserted that much the same was true of the so-called Poisoned Pawn Variation of the Najdorf Sicilian, which arises after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6!? This has long been considered one of the sharpest and most problematic,[47][48] or even foolhardy, opening lines.[49][50][51][52] The game usually continues 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3.[53] Georgiev and Kolev stated that 6.Bg5 is seldom seen at the highest level because the main line of this variation leads, with best play, to a draw by perpetual check.[54] They wrote that the following game "will probably remain the last word of theory":[55] Francisco Vallejo Pons-Kasparov, Moscow 2004[56][57]: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.f5 Nc6 11.fxe6 fxe6 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.e5 dxe5 14.Bxf6 gxf6 15.Ne4 Qxa2 16.Rd1 Be7 17.Be2 O-O 18.O-O Ra7 19.Rf3 Kh8 20.Rg3 Rd7 21.Qh6 Rf7 22.Qh5 Rxd1+ 23.Bxd1 Qa5 24.Kf1 Qd8 25.Qxf7 Qxd1+ 26.Kf2 Qxc2+ 27.Kf3 Qd1+ 28.Kf2 Qc2+ 29.Ke3 Bc5+ 30.Nxc5 Qxc5+ 31.Kd2 Qf2+ 32.Kc3 Qd4+ 33.Kc2 Qf2+ 34.Kc3 1/2–1/2 (After 34...Qd4+, White cannot escape the checks.) However, Georgiev and Kolev's pessimistic assessment of 6.Bg5 has since been called into question, as White has succeeded with 10.e5 (another critical line) in several recent high-level games.[58] [edit] White wins[edit] White wins with 1.e4
After 1.e4, "White ought to win", according to Adams.
Although it is very much a minority view, three prominent twentieth-century masters claimed that White's advantage should or may be decisive with best play. Weaver Adams, then one of the leading American masters,[59] was the best-known proponent of this view, which he introduced in his 1939 book White to Play and Win,[60] and continued to expound in later books and articles until shortly before his death in 1963.[61] Adams opined that 1.e4 was White's strongest move,[62] and that if both sides played the best moves thereafter, "White ought to win."[63] Adams' claim was widely ridiculed.[64] GM Larry Evans wrote in 1962 that "Mr. Adams and his cronies may be linked to the radical right wing of chess. ... Weaver is not content with such halfway measures as equality. All or nothing—right-wing logic, true to form."[65][66] 
Adams did not succeed in demonstrating the validity of his theory in tournament and match practice. The year after his book was published, at the finals of the 1940 U.S. Open tournament, he scored only one draw in his four games as White, but won all four of his games as Black.[67] Adams also lost a match to IM I.A. Horowitz, who took the Black pieces in every game.[68] According to Sveshnikov, Vsevolod Rauzer, a leading Soviet player and theoretician during the 1930s,[69] likewise "claimed in the [1930s]: '1.e4—and White wins!' and he managed to prove it quite often."[10] Rauzer and Adams thus turned on its head the prominent hypermodern player Gyula Breyer's famous statement that after 1.e4, "White's game is in the last throes!"[70] [edit] White wins with 1.d4
After 1.d4, Berliner claimed that White may have a winning advantage.
More recently, IM Hans Berliner, a former World Champion of Correspondence Chess, claimed in his 1999 book The System that 1.d4 gives White a large, and possibly decisive, advantage. Berliner asserted that with best play White wins against the Grünfeld Defense, the Modern Benoni, the Benko Gambit and other (unnamed) "major defences", and achieves at least a large advantage in many lines of the Queen's Gambit Declined.[71] However, he allowed that, "It is possible that the rules of chess are such that only some number of plausible-appearing defences to 1.d4 can be refuted."[72] Berliner wrote that Adams' "theories, though looked upon with scorn by most top chess players, made an immediate and lasting impression on me. Weaver W. Adams was the first person I met who actually had theories about how chess should be played."[64] Berliner's thesis, like Adams', has been sharply criticized.[73][74][75] IM Jeremy Silman wrote, "the sheer insanity of [Berliner's] claims made me laugh out loud on several occasions ... . 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 ... in all things related to chess."[76] [edit] Modern perspectivesAs explained below, chess theorists in recent decades have continued to debate the size and nature of White's advantage, if any. Apart from Berliner, they have rejected the idea that White has a forced win from the opening position. Many also reject the traditional paradigm that Black's objective should be to neutralize White's initiative and obtain equality. [edit] White has an enduring advantageIn 2004, GM Larry Kaufman expressed a more nuanced view than Adams and Berliner, arguing that the initiative stemming from the first move can always be transformed into some sort of enduring advantage, albeit not necessarily a decisive one. Kaufman 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 advantage that persists into the endgame. If chess were scored like boxing, with drawn games awarded by some point system to the player (if any) who came 'closer' to winning, then I believe White would indeed have a forced win in theory."[77] [edit] Black is OK!Starting in 1988, Adorján has argued in a series of books and magazine articles that "Black is OK!"[78][79] Alone among modern writers, Adorján claims that White starts the game with essentially no advantage. He writes, "In my opinion, the only obvious advantage for White is that if he or she plays for a draw, and does so well, then Black can hardly avoid this without taking obvious risks."[80] Adorján goes so far as to claim that, "The tale of White's advantage is a delusion, belief in it is based on mass psychosis."[81] Rowson writes that Adorján's "contention is one of the most important chess ideas of the last two decades ... because it has shaken our assumption that White begins the game with some advantage, and revealed its ideological nature".[82] However, Rowson rejects Adorján's claim that White has essentially no advantage, reasoning that " 'White is better' and 'Black is OK' need not be mutually exclusive claims."[83] In one of Adorján's books, GM Lajos Portisch opines that "at least two-thirds of all 'tested' openings give White an apparent advantage." According to Portisch, for Black, "The root of the problem is that very few people know which are the openings where Black is really OK. Those who find these lines have nothing to fear, as Black is indeed OK, but only in those variations!"[84] Rowson considers this an important point,[83] noting that "1.d4 players struggle to get anywhere against main-line Slavs and 1.e4 players find the Najdorf and Sveshnikov Sicilians particularly tough."[85] [edit] DynamismModern writers often think of Black's role in more dynamic terms than merely trying to equalize. Rowson writes that "the idea of Black trying to 'equalize' is questionable. I think it has limited application to a few openings, rather than being an opening prescription for Black in general."[83] Evans wrote that after one of his games against Fischer, "Fischer confided his 'secret' to me: unlike other masters, he sought to win with the Black pieces from the start. The revelation that Black has dynamic chances and need not be satisfied with mere equality was the turning point in his career, he said."[86] Likewise, Watson surmised that Kasparov, when playing Black, bypasses the question of whether White has an opening advantage "by thinking in terms of the concrete nature of the dynamic imbalance on the board, and seeking to seize the initiative whenever possible."[6] Watson observes that "energetic opening play by Black may ... lead to a position so complex and unclear that to speak of equality is meaningless. Sometimes we say 'dynamically balanced' instead of 'equal' to express the view that either player is as likely as the other to emerge from complications with an advantage. This style of opening play has become prevalent in modern chess, with World Champions Fischer and Kasparov as its most visible practitioners."[87] Modern writers also question the idea that White has an enduring advantage. Suba, in his influential 1991 book Dynamic Chess Strategy,[88] rejects the notion that the initiative can always be transformed into an enduring advantage. He contends that sometimes the player with the initiative loses it with no logical explanation, and that, "Sometimes you must lose it, just like that. If you try to cling to it, by forcing the issue, your dynamic potential will become exhausted and you won't be able to face a vigorous counter-attack."[89] Rowson and Watson concur.[90][91] Watson also observes, "Because of the presumption of White being better, the juncture of the game at which Black frees his game or neutralizes White's plans has often been automatically assumed to give him equality, even though in dynamic openings, the exhaustion of White's initiative very often means that Black has seized it with advantage."[92] [edit] Countervailing advantagesRowson argues that both White and Black have certain advantages:[93] [edit] White's advantages | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
