The first-step advantage in chess is an inherent advantage of the player (White) that makes the first step in chess. Chess players and theorists generally agree that White started the game with some advantages. Since 1851, compiled statistics support this view; White consistently win slightly more often than Black, usually print between 52 and 56%. White win percentage almost the same for tournament games between humans and games between computers; However, White excellence is less significant in games and flash games between students.
Chess players and theorists have long debated whether, given the perfect game by both sides, the game must end in victory for White or a draw. Since about 1889, when World Champion Wilhelm Steinitz addressed this issue, the consensus was that the game played perfectly would end in a draw. Some famous players argue, however, that White's gains may be enough to force victory: Weaver Adams and Vsevolod Rauzer claim that White wins after the first step 1.e4, while Hans Berliner believes that 1.d4 can win for White.
Some players, including world champions such as JosÃÆ'Â Ã © RaÃÆ'ºl Capablanca, Emanuel Lasker, and Bobby Fischer, have expressed fears of a "death of balance" as chess becomes more profoundly analyzed. To reduce this danger, Capablanca and Fischer proposed a chess variant to revitalize the game, while Lasker suggested changing the way to draw and score.
Since 1988, chess theorists have challenged previously established views of White's advantage. Grandmaster (GM) AndrÃÆ'¡s AdorjÃÆ'¡n wrote a series of books with the theme "Black is OK!", For the reason that the general perception that White has more advantages is found in psychology than reality. GM Mihai Suba and others argue that sometimes White's initiative disappeared for no apparent reason as the game progresses. The usual play style for Black now is to look for imbalances, game rival , instead of just trying 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 players, who sometimes lose by trying too hard to win. Some symmetrical openings (ie where the Black Black copying movement) can cause a situation where the first move is a loss, either for psychological or objective reasons.
Chess is not a completed game, and it is considered unlikely that the game will be completed in the near future.
Video First-move advantage in chess
Win percentage
In 1946, W.F. Streeter examined the results of 5,598 games played in 45 international chess tournaments between 1851 and 1932. Streeter found that overall White scored 53.4% ​​(W: 38.12; D: 30.56; L: 31.31). White scored 52.55% at 1851-1878 (W: 45.52; D: 14.07; L: 40.41), 52.77% at 1881-1914 (W: 36.89; D: 31.76 ; L: 31.35), and 55.47% in 1919-1932 (W: 36.98; D: 36.98; L: 26.04). Streeter concluded, "It thus seems increasingly difficult to win with Black, but it's easier to draw."
Two decades later, statistician Arthur M. Stevens concluded in the Blue Book Charts for Winning Chess, based on a survey of 56,972 master games he completed in 1967, that the White score was 59.1%. However, Stevens collected his game from being published in a chess magazine, not a complete collection of all the games played on certain occasions.
More recent sources indicate that the White score is about 54 to 56 percent. In 2005, GM Jonathan Rowson wrote that "conventional wisdom is that White started the game with a small profit and, holding all other factors constant, scores about 56% to the Black's 44%". International Master (IM) John Watson wrote in 1998 that White has scored 56% for most of the 20th century, but this figure has recently dropped to 55%. The Chessgames.com website keeps regularly updated statistics on its game database. On January 12, 2015, White has won 37.50%, 34.90% withdrawn, and Black has won 27.60% of the 739,769 matches, resulting in a total of 54.95% wins.
New In Chess observed in its 2000 Yearbook of 731,740 games in its database, White scored 54.8% overall; with two of the most popular opening gestures, White scored 54.1% at 349,855Ã, the game started 1.e4 (moved the king's pion 2 spaces forward), and 56.1% in 296,200 games starting 1.d4 (move queen queen 2 spaces forward). The main reason that 1.e4 is less effective than 1.d4 is Sicilian Defense (1.e4 c5), which gives White only a 52.3% score in 145,996 games.
The statistician Jeff Sonas, in examining data from 266,000 games played between 1994 and 2001, concluded that White scored 54.1767% plus 0.001164 times the advantage of the White Elo rating, treating White's rank of excellence as 390 if better than 390, 460 if it's worse than -460. He found that White's advantage is equivalent to 35 rating points, that is, if White has ranked 35 points under Black's, each player will have a 50% expected score. Sonas also found that White's advantage is smaller (53%) in fast games than in games on slower time control ("classic"). In 462 matches played at the 2009 World Blitz Chess Championship, White scored only 52.16% (W38.96 D26.41 L 34.63).
Other authors conclude that there is a positive correlation between player ratings and White scores. According to GM Evgeny Sveshnikov, statistics show that White has no advantage over Black in the beginner game, but "if the players are stronger, White has an edge". Analysis of game results in ChessBase's Mega 2003 database between players of the same Elo rank, commissioned by GM AndrÃÆ'¡s AdorjÃÆ'¡n, indicates that as the player ranks up, the draw percentage increases, the proportion of the game determines. which White won increased, and White's overall winning percentage increased. For example, taking the highest and lowest ranking categories of 1669 games played by the highest ranked players (Elo 2700 rank and higher), White scored 55.7% overall (W26.5 D58.4 L15.2), while from 34,924 games played by the player with the lowest rank (Elo rank below 2100), White scored 53.1% overall (W37.0 D32.1 L30.8). AdorjÃÆ'¡n also analyzes the results of the games played at the highest level: World Championship matches. Of the 755 games played in 34 games between 1886 and 1990, White won 234 (31.0%), withdraws 397 (52.6%), and lost 124 (16.4%), for a total winning percentage of 57.3 %. In the last five games in the Adorjan survey, all between Anatoly Karpov and Garry Kasparov, White won 31 (25.8%), withdrew 80 (66.7%), and lost 9 (7.5%), for the total percentage of white victory 59.2%.
The Grand Tournament Chess Engines (CEGT) test computer chess machines by playing them with each other, with 40 movement time controls in 120 minutes per player (40/120), as well as 40/20 and 40/4, and using results from games it's to compile a ranking list for each time control. At the slowest time control (40/120), White has scored 55.4% (W34.7 D41.3 L24.0) in a game played among the 38 strongest chess machines (on May 27, 2009). On 40/20, White has scored 55.1% (W35.6 D39.1 L25.3) in a game played between 1568 machines (on 22 April 2018). At the fastest time control (40/4), White has scored 54.8% (W39.6 D30.5 L30.0), in games played between 128 programs (on May 28, 2009).
In 2017 AlphaZero, playing 100 games against Stockfish, won 25 and draw 25 as white, but won 3 and drew 47 as black.
Maps First-move advantage in chess
Best plays with
Joseph Bertin wrote in his 1735 textbook The Noble Game of Chess, "He who played first, was understood to have the attack." This is consistent with the traditional view that White, based on the first step, begins with and must trying to extend it into the middlegame, while Black should try to neutralize White's initiative and achieve . Since White begins with initiative, a minor mistake by White generally only leads to a loss of initiative, while similar mistakes by Black may have more serious consequences. So Sveshnikov wrote in 1994, "Blacks are incapable of making the slightest mistake... from a theoretical point of view, White and Black's chess duties differ: White must fight to win, Black - for a draw!"
Chess theorists have long debated how enduring the White initiative and whether, if both sides play perfectly, the match must end in victory for White or a draw. George Walker wrote in 1846 that, "The first step is profit,... but if answered correctly, the first step is a small value". Steinitz, the first World Champion, widely regarded as the father of modern chess, wrote in 1889, "It is now defeated by all experts that by playing properly on both sides, the legitimate problem of a match should be a draw." Lasker and Capablanca, the second and third world Champion, agreed. Ruben Fine, one of the world's leading players from 1936 to 1951, wrote that White's opening advantage was too intangible to be enough to win without error by Black.
The view that the game of chess should end with a raffle given the best game applicable. Even if it can not be proved, this assumption is considered "safe" by Rowson and "logical" by AdorjÃÆ'¡n. Watson agrees that "the exact result of a perfectly-played chess game... is a draw.... Of course, I can not prove this, but I doubt that you can find one strong player who will disagree. I remember Kasparov, after the last round of draws, explaining to the waiting reporter: 'Well, chess is a draw. ' "World Champion Bobby Fischer thinks that" it is almost certain that the game is theoretically drawing ". Similarly, the English grandmaster Nigel Short wrote that "... with a perfect game, God versus God... chess is a lottery".
Lasker and Capablanca are worried that chess will suffer from "draw death" because top players are increasingly attracting more and more of their games. Recently, Fischer agrees, saying that the game has been played. All three advocate changing the rules of chess to minimize the number of games drawn. Lasker suggested scoring less than half a point for a draw, and over half a point to lead the opposing king. Capablanca in the 1920s proposed a Capablanca chess, a chess variant played on larger boards and with additional pieces. Fischer recommends Fischerandom Chess, another chess variant, in which the initial position of the piece is determined randomly.
Today some of the sharpest the opening variations have been very deeply analyzed so often used as drawing weapon . For example, at the highest level, Black often uses Marshall Attack on Ruy Lopez, the line where Black sacrifices pawn for powerful attacking opportunities, to get an endgame where Black is still a pledge but can draw properly playing.
In 2007, GM Kiril Georgiev and Atanas Kolev confirmed that much the same applies to the so-called Poisoned Poisoned Variations of Najdorf Sicily, which emerged after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6!? It has long been regarded as one of the sharpest and most problematic, or even blindly, lines. The game usually continues 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3. Georgiev and Kolev stated that 6.Bg5 is rarely seen at the highest level because main line from this variation leads, with the best game, to a draw with ongoing inspection. They wrote that the following game "will probably remain the last word of the theory":
Francisco Vallejo Pons-Garry Kasparov, Moskow 2004: 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 0-0 18. 0-0 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 Ã,Â--Ã, ((Setelah 34... Qd4, Putih tidak dapat lolos dari pemeriksaan.)
However, the pessimistic assessment of Georgiev and Kolev about 6.Bg5 has since been questioned, as White manages to 10.e5 (another critical line) in some later high level game. GM Zaven Andriasyan wrote in 2013 that after 10.f5, "forced drawdowns", but after 10.5, "we reached a very sharp position, with reciprocal opportunities."
White victory
Despite its very minority view, three 20th-century professors claimed that White's superiority should or may be decisive with the best game possible.
Whites with 1.e4
Weaver Adams, one of America's leading masters, is the most famous supporter of this view, which he introduced in his 1939 book White to Play and Win, and continues to be described in later books and articles. until shortly before his death in 1963. Adams argued that 1.e4 is White's strongest movement, and if both sides play the best step thereafter, "White must prevail." Adams's claims are widely ridiculed, and he is unable to demonstrate the validity of his theory in tournaments and matches. A year after his book was published, in the final of the US open tournament in 1940, he scored just one draw in his four matches as White but won all four of his games as Black. Adams also lost the match with IM I.A. Horowitz, who picked up black pieces in every game.
According to Sveshnikov, Vsevolod Rauzer, a prominent Soviet player and theoretician during the 1930s, was also "claimed in the 1930s: '1.e4 - and White won!' and he manages to prove it quite often ".
Whites with 1.d4
Recently, IM Hans Berliner, former World Chess Corresponding Champion, claimed in his 1999 book The System that 1.d4 gave White a big, and perhaps decisive advantage. Berliner insists that with the best game, White wins against GrÃÆ'¼nfeld Defense, Modern Benoni, Benko Gambit, and other "main defenses", and achieves at least a huge advantage on many lines of the Queen's Gambit Declined. He permits, however, that "It is possible that the rules of chess are such that only some amount of defense that seems reasonable for 1.d4 is undeniable." Berliner writes that "Adams's theories, though viewed with scorn by most of the top chess players, made a lasting and lasting impression on me.Weaver W. Adams was the first person I met who really had a theory about how chess should be played. "
The Berliner thesis, like Adams, has been sharply criticized.
Modern perspectives
As explained below, chess theorists in recent decades continue to debate the size and nature of White's gain, if any. In addition to Berliner, they rejected the idea that White was forced to win from the opening position. Many also reject the traditional paradigm that Black's goal must neutralize White's initiative and gain equality.
White has a lasting advantage
In 2004, GM Larry Kaufman expressed a more nuanced view of Adams and Berliner, arguing that initiatives derived from the first step can always be transformed into a long-lasting, though not always decisive, kind of benefit. Kaufman writes: "I do not believe that White has a victory imposed on Chess, but I believe that with 1.e4 or 1.d4, White must be able to gain some kind of profit that lasts until the end of the game.If chess is rated like boxing, with the game pictorial is given by some points system for players (if any) who come 'closer' to winning, then I believe White will indeed have a forced win in theory. "
Black is fine!
Beginning in 1988, AdorjÃÆ'¡n argued in a series of books and magazine articles that "Black is OK!" Alone among modern writers, AdorjÃÆ'¡n claims that White started the game with essentially no gain. He wrote, "In my opinion, the only obvious advantage for White is that if he plays for a draw, and does it so well, then Black can barely avoid this without taking a clear risk." AdorjÃÆ'¡n goes so far as to claim that, "White's White tale is a delusion, his belief based on mass psychosis." Rowson writes that "AdorjÃÆ'¡n's dispute is one of the most important chess ideas of the last two decades... for it has shaken our assumption that White started the game with some advantages, and revealed his ideological nature." However, Rowson rejects AdorjÃÆ'¡n's claim that White basically has no advantage, the reason that " 'White is better' and 'Black is OK' need not be mutually exclusive claims."
In one of AdorjÃÆ'¡n's books, GM Lajos Portisch argues that "at least two-thirds of all openings' tested 'give White a real advantage.' According to Portisch, for Black, "The root of the problem is that very few people know which openings where Black is really good.They who find these lines need not be afraid, because Black is OK , but only on that variation! "Rowson considers this an important point, noting that" 1.d4 players are struggling to get anywhere against mainline Slavs and 1.e4 players find Najdorf and Sveshnikov Sicilians very tough. "
Dynamism
Modern writers often think about the role of Black in more dynamic rather than just trying to equate. Rowson writes that "Black's idea of ​​trying to 'equalize' is questionable.I think it has limited apps for multiple openings, rather than being an opening recipe for Black in general." Evans wrote that after one match against Fischer, "Fischer told me his secret: unlike other masters, he tried to win with Black pieces from the beginning.Revelations that Black has a dynamic chance and do not have to settle for equality are just a turning point in "Watson guessed that Kasparov, while playing Black, ignored the question of whether White had an opening advantage" by thinking in terms of the concrete nature of the dynamic imbalance on the board, and trying to seize the initiative whenever possible. " Watson observes that "the energetic opening game by Black can... lead to such a complex and vague position that speaking of equality is meaningless.. Sometimes we say 'dynamically balanced' is not 'the same' to express the view that one of the players is another possibility to emerge from complications with profit.The style of this opening game has become prevalent in modern chess, with World Champion Fischer and Kasparov being the most visible practitioners. "
Modern writers also question the idea that White has a lasting advantage. Suba, in his influential book in 1991 Dynamic Chess Strategy , rejected the idea that the initiative could always be turned into a lasting advantage. He argues that sometimes players with the initiative lose it without a logical explanation, and that, "Sometimes you have to lose it, just like that.If you try to stick to it, by imposing a problem, your dynamic potential will become tired and you do not will be able to face strong counterattacks. "Rowson and Watson agree. Watson also observed, "Since the assumption of White is better, the crossroads of games in which Black frees his game or neutralizes White's plan are often automatically assumed to give him equality, although in dynamic openings, the exhaustion of White's initiative very often means that Black has seized him with the advantage. "
Benefits of countervailing
Rowson argues that both White and Black have certain advantages:
Excess White
According to Rowson, White's first advantage is that, "The advantages of the first step have some similarities to the serve in tennis where White can print 'ace' (eg with a strong preparation and attack proficiency. "Fourth," If White wants to draw, it's often not so easy for Black to prevent this. This advantage is particularly acute in cases where there is a triple repetition, since White can begin repetition without drawing and Black has to decide whether to stray before he knows whether White is bluffing. "
Rowson cites as an example of the recent phenomenon of Vait Zaitsev who is considered good of Ruy Lopez. After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d6 9.h3 Bb7 10.d4 Re8 (start Zaitsev Variation) , White can repeat a move once with 11.Ng5 Rf8 12.Nf3. This puts Black in an awkward situation, as he must (a) insist on Zaitsev with 12... Re8, which allows White to choose whether to draw with triple repetition with 13.Ng5 Rf8 14.Nf3, or play with different movements, or (b) play different (and perhaps inferior) variations by playing something other than 12... Re8.
Black Excellence
Rowson argues that Black also has several advantages. First, "White's alleged advantage is also an obligation to play to win, and Black can often use this to his advantage." Second, "White's 'extra step' can be a burden, and sometimes White finds himself in a lighter form of zugzwang ('Zugzwang Lite')." Third, although White started the game with the initiative, if "Black maintains a flexible position with good reactive possibilities, this initiative can be absorbed and often passed to Black." Fourth, "The fact that White is moving before Black often gives Black useful information". Suba also believes that White's gains are actually less than a move, since White should tip first, allowing Black to react to White's plans. Suba writes, "In terms of mathematical game theory, chess is a game of complete information, and information Black is always bigger - in one motion!"
Rowson also noted that Black's chances increased markedly by playing good openings, which tended them with flexibility and latent potential, "than those who gave White fixed targets or who tried to take the initiative prematurely." He also stressed that "White has an 'initiative' rather than a 'profit'.The success with Black depends on looking beyond initiative and thinking of positions in terms of 'potential'." These ideas are exemplified by the Hedgehog, the dynamic modern system of English Opening that can arise from various move command . Typical positions appear after 1.c4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 b6 4.Bg2 Bb7 5.0-0 e6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.d4 cxd4 8.Qxd4 d6 9.e4 a6. White has spatial advantage , while Black often maneuvers the pieces on the last two rank board, but White "should keep an eye on possible liberating pawns... b5 and.. d5. "Watson commented," Black's goal is to remain elastic and flexible, with many options for the pieces, whereas White can become paralyzed at some point by the need to protect against various dynamic break parade ." He also observed that, "White tends to be too attached to Black's latent activity because Black itself is bound by the White space advantage." In addition, an attempt by White to invade Black positions often bounces disastrously. An example of this is the following grandmaster game:
Lev Polugaevsky-? UbomÃÆ'r FtÃÆ'¡? Nik, Lucerne Olympiad 1982: 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nc3 e6 4. g3 b6 5. Bg2 Bb7 6. 0-0 Be7 7. d4 cxd4 8. Qxd4 d6 9. Rd1 a6 10. b3 Nbd7 11. e4 Qb8 12. Bb2 0-0 Suba writes of a similar Hedgehog position, "White positions look ideal.That is the naked truth about it, but 'ideal' has the definition of a weakness - it can not be fixed." 13. Nd2 Rd8 14. a4 Qc7 15. Qe3 Rac8 16. Qe2 Ne5 17. h3? According to FtÃÆ'¡? Nik, 17.f4 Neg4 18.Rf1 is better. h5! 18. f4 Ng6 19. Nf3 Now Black opens a position in a typical Hedgehog mode. d5! 20. cxd5 ?! FtÃÆ'¡? Nik considers 20.e5 or 20.exd5 is preferred. h4! 21. Nxh4 Nxh4 22. gxh4 Qxf4 23. dxe6 fxe6 24. e5? FtÃÆ'¡? Nik recommend instead 24.Rxd8 Rxd8 25.Rd1. Bc5 25. Kh1 Nh5! 26. Qxh5 Qg3 27. Nd5 Other steps immediately mated: 27.Bxb7 Qh3 #; 27.Qe2 Qxh3 #; 27.Qg4 Bxg2 #. Rxd5 28. Rf1 Qxg2! 29. Kxg2 Rd2 0-1 If 30.Kg3 (one only legal response to double checking), 30... Rg2 31.Kf4 Rf8 pair troop.
Reversed and symmetrical openings illustrate the benefits of White and Black respectively:
Reverse Opening
In the "reversed opening", White plays the opening which is usually played by Black, but with the color upside down and thus extra tempo. Evans writes about such openings, "If the defense is considered good for Black, it's definitely better for White with movements in hand." Former World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik reportedly expressed the same view. Watson questioned this idea, citing Suba's thesis that Black, with a second move, had more complete information than White. He wrote, "Everyone has difficulties like White against Sicilian Defense (1.e4 c5), but... the leading master has no qualms to answer 1.c4 with 1... e5." To illustrate this paradox, Watson discusses several different reverse Sicilian lines, showing how Black can exploit losses from various "extra" moves for White. He concluded,
The bottom line is, Black set-up in Sicily is fine as a reactive system, but it is not of much use when trying to claim initiative as White. This is true because Black is able to react to White's specific plan; in Suba terms, the information is indeed a bigger step! In addition, he is able to take advantage of the same position that the White die (hoping to maintain the advantage of the first step) will usually be avoided.
Watson also observed, "Similarly, the Dutch Defense looks very sterile when White reaches upside down position (apparently he's nothing useful to do!); And indeed, many standard Black openings are not very inspiring when someone gets them as White, the tempo in hand. "GM Alex Yermolinsky also notes that GM Vladimir Malaniuk, a successful exponent of Leningrad Dutch (1.d4 f5 2.g3 g6) at the highest level," once made a deep impression on me by casually rejecting someone's suggestion that he should try 1.f4 as White.He smiled and said, 'That extra step will hurt me. ' "
Yermolinsky also agrees with Alekhine's critique of 1.g3 e5 2.Nf3, Alekhine's reversed defense, in RÃÆ' Â © ti-Alekhine, Baden-Baden 1925, writes that Alekhine "understood the difference in opening philosophy to White and Black, and realized that White is supposed to be trying more than just getting a comfortable game in a reversed color opening setting, and, as the stats show - surprising to many, but not for me - White does not even score as well as Black in the same position as extra tempo and everything. "Howard Staunton, generally considered the strongest player in the world from 1843 to 1851, made similar points more than 160 years ago, writes that Owen's Defense (1.e4 b6) can be played for Black, but 1.b3 lower for the more traditional "first [movement], from which it is essentially defensive". The current view is that Owen's Defense is slightly better for White, while 1.b3 can be played but is unlikely to result in an opening advantage of 1.e4 or 1.d4.
Watson summed it up
- "most movements have disadvantages and advantages, so the extra step is not always an unqualified blessing";
- "with additional information about what White is doing, Black can react better to the new situation"; and
- since the draw tends to be more acceptable to Black than White, White tends to avoid lines that allow for drawish simplicity, while Black may not mind the line.
Symmetrical openings
Rowson writes that "in general people will assume that any advantage White has will be revealed most clearly in a symmetrical position." Thus, Watson, Suba, Evans, and leading player and theorist Aron Nimzowitsch (1886-1935) all argue that it is in Black's interest to avoid symmetry. Nevertheless, symmetrical opening lines sometimes illustrate the weak nature of White's gain, in some ways.
It is often difficult for White to prove his superiority in the symmetrical opening line. As GM Bent Larsen writes, the annotating game begins 1.c4 c5 2.b3 b6, "In symmetrical openings, White has a theoretical advantage, but in many of them it is only theoretical." GM Andrew Soltis wrote in 2008 that he hates the game against the symmetrical Petroff Defense (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6), and thus varies with 2.Nc3, the Vienna Game. However, there too he can not find a way to gain a gain after symmetric 2... Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7, or after 3.Nf3 Nf6 ( transposing to Game Four Knights) 4.Bb5 Bb4 5.0-0 0-0 6.d3 d6 7.Bg5 Bg4 8.Nd5 Nd4 9.Nxb4 Nxb5, or 7.Ne2 Ne7 8.c3 Ba5 9.Ng3 c6 10.Ba4 Ng6 11.d4 d5, when is 12.exd5?! e4! maybe even likes Black.
In addition, a symmetrical position may not be beneficial for White because he has to do it himself first. Watson notes that it is even hard for White to play indecent in a symmetrical position, since almost every movement has certain weaknesses. Fischer once stated that after 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 g6 3.Bg2 Bg7 4.0-0 0-0 5.d3 d6 (Reinhard-Fischer, Western Open 1963), "" Believe it or not, 'Black stands better! Now, whatever White does, Black will vary it and gain asymmetrical position and have a superior position because of his better pawn structure! "However, GM Paul Keres responded in CHESS magazine," We just do not believe it! " In a symmetrical position, as the Hodgson-Arkell and Portisch-Tal games discussed below illustrate, Black can continue to imitate White as long as he finds it feasible and desirable to do so, and deviates when it is no longer the case.
Furthermore, certain extra steps are sometimes more a liability than an asset. For example, Soltis noted that the French Exchange position appeared after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Nf3 Nf6 "quite the same". The same position, but with knight Black moved to e4, appears in Petroff's Defense after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5. That position offers a better White chance precisely because of the extra movement Black (... Ne4) allows sophisticated knights to become the target of attack.
Finally, a symmetrical position may be difficult for a white player for psychological reasons. Watson writes that whoever tries French Exchange, "even if he thinks he's playing to win, considers [psychological] burden.) White has handed the advantage of the first step, and knows it, while Black is challenged to find ways to take the initiative." Two notable examples of White losses in the French Bourse are M. Gurevich-Short and Tatai-Korchnoi. In M. Gurevich-Short, a game between two of the world's leading players, White just needs a draw to qualify for the Prospective Race, while Black is needed to win. Gurevich plays passively and loses to Short, who takes the necessary victory. In Tatai-Korchnoi, IM Italy becomes a victim of the whirlwind Korchnoi marriage attack , lose in just 14 movements.
Rowson gives an example of the following Black outplaying of the English Symmetrical Opening Variation. He commented, "there's something interesting about Black's strategy.She seems to say: 'I'll copy all your good moves, and as soon as you make a bad move, I will not copy you anymore! ' "
Hodgson-Arkell, Newcastle 2001: 1. c4 c5 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Bg7 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. a3 a6 6. Rb1 Rb8 7. b4 cxb4 8. axb4 b5 9. cxb5 axb5 (see diagram). Here Rowson commented, "Both sides want to push their d-pawn and play Bf4/... Bf5, but White must go first so Black can play... d5 before White can play d4.This does not really matter. , but it has pointed to the challenge facing White here, his most natural continuation allows Black to play the moves he wants.Therefore I will say that White is in 'Zugzwang Lite' and that he remains in this state for some movements. " 10. Nf3 d5 10... Nf6 11.0-0 0-0 12.d3 d6 13.Bd2 Bd7 will be moved to the Portisch-Tal game below. 11. d4 Nf6 12. Bf4 Rb6 13. 0-0 Bf5 14. Rb3 0-0 15. Ne5 Ne4 16. h3 h5 !? Finally breaking symmetry. 17. Kh2 This position is still almost symmetrical, and White can not find anything useful to do with extra gestures. Rowson weirdly suggested 17.h4!?, Forcing Black into one to break the symmetry. 17... Re8! Rowson notes that this is a useful waiting step, spanning e7, which needs protection on multiple lines, and may end up ending... e5 (see the twenty-second Black step). White can not copy it, since after 18.Re1? Nxf2 Black will win the pawn. 18. Be3 ?! Nxe5! 19. dxe5 Rc6! Rowson notes that with the more active pieces, "Looks like Black has some initiative." If it is now 20.Nxd5, Bxe5 "is at least the same for Black". 20. Nxb5 Bxe5! 20... Nxf2? 21.Qxd5! win. 21. Nd4 Bxd4 22. Bxd4 e5 Rowson writes, "Now both parties have their trump card, but I think Black has some advantages, because of its extra central control, imposing knights and prospects for kingside attack ." 23. b5 Rc8 24. Bb2 d4 (diagram). Now White has a tough game: Rowson analyzes 25.e3 ?! Nxg3 24.fxg3 Bc2 25.Qf3 Bxb3 26.exd4 Bc4 !, win; 25.g4 hxg4 26.hxg4 Nxf2! 27.Rxf2 Bc2, won; 25.Q1!? Rc2! with profit; and 25.f4 (at risk, but probably best) Nc3! 26.Bxc3 dxc3 27.Qxd8 Rexd8, and Black is better. 25. b6? Ignores Black threats. 25... Nxf2! 26. Qe1 If 26.Rxf2, Bc2 queen fork and White fort. 26... Ne4 27. b7 Rb8 28. g4 hxg4 29. hxg4 Be6 30. Rb5 Nf6! 31. Rxf6 Qxf6 32. Qg3 Bc4 33. g5 Qh8 0-1
The opening of the following game between two world class players, other Symmetrical English, takes a similar course:
Lajos Portisch-Mikhail Tal, Pair of Candidates 1965: 1. Nf3 c5 2. c4 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. g3 g6 5. Bg2 Bg7 6. 0-0 0-0 7. d3 a6 8. a3 Rb8 9 Rb1 b5 10. cxb5 axb5 11. b4 cxb4 12. axb4 d6 13. Bd2 bd7 (see diagram). Once again, White moved in a symmetrical position, but it was not clear what he could do with his first step initiative. Soltis writes, "It's silly to think of Black's better position, but Mikhail Tal says it's easier to play, with a second move he can see White's moves and then decide whether to match it." 14. Qc1 Here, Soltis writes that Black can maintain equality by keeping symmetry: 14... Qc8 15.Bh6 Bh3. Instead, he plays to prove that Queen White is misplaced. 14... Rc8! 15. Bh6 Nd4! Threatening 16... Nxe2. 16. Nxd4 Bxh6 17. Qxh6 Rxc3 18. Qd2 Qc7 19. Rfc1 Rc8 (diagram). Although the pledge structure is still symmetrical, Black controls against c- gives him an advantage. Black eventually reached the endgame of two pawns, but White managed to hold a draw in 83 movements.
Tal himself lost his famous game as White from a symmetrical position at Tal-Beliavsky, USSR Championship 1974.
Tournaments and game matches
In chess and match tournaments, the frequency of each player receiving white and black is an important consideration. In the match, the player's color in the first game is determined by a draw, and alternates afterwards. In a round robin tournament with an odd number of players, each player receives the same number of white and blacks; with an even number of players, each receiving one extra white or black. Where one or more players withdraws from the tournament, the tournament director can change the colors set in some games so that no player receives two more blacks than the whites, or vice versa. Double round robin tournaments are thought to provide the most reliable last positions, as each player receives the same amount of whites and blacks, and plays White and Black against each opponent.
In Swiss system tournaments, the tournament director tries to ensure that every player receives, as close as possible, the same number of games as White and Black, and that the color of the player alternates from lap to lap. After the first round, the director can deviate from the specified pair to give as many players equalize or color. Larger deviations are allowed to avoid giving the two players more black than the whites (for example, three blacks in four games) rather than the opposite, because the extra white "causes much less trouble players" than the black extras, impose "significant defects "on affected players. A tournament with an even number of turns causes a lot of trouble, because if there is a difference, it's bigger (e.g., Player receives two white and four blacks).
Resolving chess
The game of chess is unsolved, meaning it has not been determined with certainty whether the game played perfectly will end in victory for White, a draw, or even a victory for Black. Due to the high level of complexity and limitations of computer technology, it is considered unlikely that it will be completed in the near future.
In his 1950 paper "Computer Programming for Playing Chess", information theorist Claude Shannon argues that in principle the game of chess must be solvable. But in practice, he argues that it is impossible for any computer to do this. He estimates that the computer will need to count 10 120 positions from the initial position, which it says will take 10 90 years. Thus theoretically possible to break the chess, however, according to Shannon the necessary period of time puts this possibility beyond the limits of viable technology.
Hans-Joachim Bremermann, a professor of mathematics and biophysics at the University of California at Berkeley, further argues in a 1965 paper that "the speed, memory, and processing capacity of computer equipment in the future may be limited by certain physical barriers: , quantum barriers , and thermodynamic barrier .This limitation implies, for example, that no computer, however built, will ever be able to inspect the entire tree of possible sequences of movement game chess. "However, Bremermann did not rule out that one day the computer will be able to complete chess. He writes, "To have a computer playing the perfect or almost perfect game [chess] will be required either to analyze the game completely... or to analyze the game in an approximate way and combine this with a limited number of tree searches.... Theoretical understanding of programming Such heuristics, however, are still highly desirable. "
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments