19 ( +1 | -1 ) black vs whitei have noticed that a majority of the brilliant attackinggames, or positional games, or whatever have been won by white? why? black has no real dissavantage after the opening if he plays correctly.
125 ( +1 | -1 ) Also because....Also because if you think about it, black often allows white to set up an imposing centre before trying to undermine it...a strategy that we take for granted, but which were considered winning for white not that long ago...! Think about the four pawns attack in the Kings Indian, or some of the modern benoni positions were black hangs on my the skin of his teeth....and why?
Because black knows that white has more chances of over-reaching him/her-self in these kinds of positions....basically we give white what they want, then goad them into taking more and more space, basically convinced that it's impossible to hold all of that space....
I can't remember who said it, (I think it was Kotov) but one strong grandmaster insisted that playing black in the King's Indian was much more dangerous than playing any strongpoint style defence, but that the player of the black pieces was also able to win more.....
I also think that a small slip by white in any game can lose him his advantage, while a slip by black puts him on the rack....
What about you lot? Do you really have more success with the white pieces?
28 ( +1 | -1 ) Ihave more success as black, and so do a couple of my friends (all good B class players) but for me, success is me constantly drawing with experts and a class players as black( I have drawn 8 experts, 25 a players- won against 3 experts-2 as black 1 as white- and mabye 6-7 aclass players)
49 ( +1 | -1 ) White does not have any advantage to speak of; current theory regards that chess is a draw.
Nevertheless, White has the first move and as a result is usually battling for the initiative, whereas Black will often play safely and try to just hold the game. So the practical chances give white a little bit of an edge here (around 53%) and, consequently, there are more sacrificial attacking games, etc. won by White (there are also more games in general won by White).
38 ( +1 | -1 ) atrifixthe games I look over( at gm level) do not look like 53% in whites favor- feels more like 75%, but I may be wrong, if black can build his defences and gain the initiative it is usually decisive( or this is how shulman told me to play), so my Q is how does everyone play with white? because white does not build up his defences exept in the KIA, he just developes and attacks right?
145 ( +1 | -1 ) I think it all boils down to a chessplayer's perception of what it means to hold the White or Black pieces. Personally, even though I understand that, as far as we know, White does not have a winning advantage by moving first, I still feel that by moving first I possess a small advantage and therefore am obligated to play for a win. On Black, I feel that, by the very nature of having Black, I have a slightly inferior position, so I should be satisfied if I achieve a draw.
This seems like a rather common perception. That's why I think the "build up and then try to seize the initiative" ideas characteristic of modern setups aren't very popular with White. Usually, White is trying to go for his attack while Black is building up and then reacting to White's ideas to gain control of the game. However, if White tries the same "build up" tack, Black need not attack; he can just sit there and build up too since he might not feel any pressure or obligation to go for a win. You wind up in roughly equal positions, which makes Black happy, but not White.
I tend to try to play rather aggressively as White, but that's just because I tend to overvalue the initiative and piece mobility to begin with. I also try to play this way as Black, but I find it common in my Black games that if I want to hold control over the initiative, some type of sacrifice is usually required.