I feel it is more a question of human brain's (or machine's) capability to handle 8x8 squares to maintain that advantage for white or achieve equality or advantage) for black. Looking at the statistics shown by Sunanda above, it appears that white has some advantage. Perfect play by both sides is still a mystery, though! :) Of course, since chess isn't 'solved' then we can't be sure, but the top players, who look ahead 20-30 play, and the top computers, who look ahead 30-50 ply easily now, are a good indication that white has a definite advantage. The top human players ranged from 1-22% more wins with white, while the top computers ranged from 6.5-44% more wins by white. Yes, engines draw more than top humans (about 50% compared to 20-30% for humans) but the remaining games are won most often by white. The best engines rarely, if ever, lose as white, but lose more often as black. The higher caliber of human player, or higher rating of the chess engine, the higher the advantage for white (ranged from 1 to about 40%).įor me, this is pretty good evidence that white has a big advantage, since both the top players and basically ALL the engines achieve more wins and points as white. White wins 15% more than black, and scores 14% more than black. Hundreds of 1000's of games from available chess engine games for last 8 years (over 1500 engines): White wins 13% more, and scores 8.5% more 5) 2.5 % more than blackĪll players (several million games in public databases): I have analyzed the statistics of the top players in history, and the top chess engines of the last few years, and found that white has a distinct winning and scoring advantage except for one player (Lasker, who was about 1% better with black!). Barring some breakthrough in quantum computing allowing all possible positions to be evaluated simultaneously, I doubt chess will ever be fully solved by man.
#FRITZ CHESS ADVANTAGE WHITE BLACK FULL#
Unfortunately, it is currently impossible to generate a full 32 piece tablebase for chess, as there are more possible chess positions than atoms in the universe. To me, this is strong circumstantial evidence that chess will be another game shown to be a draw. It would be a winning lotto ticket if starting from the opening position, it happened to be one of those extremely long won positions. The striking quality to me is that the gap between move lengths in these records jumps so much all at once, which suggests that it gets harder to force a win the more moves away from the end you are, because most positions that far away are draws. There are extreme cases, for instance, the record had jumped from 292 moves in 1989 to 330, 545 in 2006, and then to 549 in 2014. (take for instance, KQRKQR endgames, the first to move wins 67% of the time).Īnother important factor seen in tablebases is that most wins have a relatively short distance to conversion (or moves to force a win). Positions that are somewhat dynamically balanced (say knight vs bishop) still result in draws a high percentage of the time, although the more powerful the remaining pieces are, the more likely first to move is the winner. The vast majority of positions which are materially balanced result in draws. Tablebases give us some insight into the debate. The first move gives a player a very slight edge initially, but does that convert to a winning advantage? The most comparable game to chess that has been solved is checkers, where it has been shown to be a draw given perfect play by the second player.
0 kommentar(er)
