In article dyDCh.3716$2w.1172@trndny09,
"Chess One" wrote:

Players overconcentrate their study with what to do with the white pieces,
and this imbalanced study coupled with received expectations of what to do
with white or black, creates a self-fulfilling result.

I disagree. I think people spend more time studying what to do with the
black pieces - because it's harder, because if they don't know what
they're doing with black, they can lose quickly.

I've certainly spent more time studying specific openings with the black
pieces.

But after 1.e4, which side actually choses the opening? If the Sicilian is
played, which side choses the sub-variation, to play the Taimanov or Pelikan
vars?

But here, of course, you're skipped over a lot of choices. I could have
been just as facetious by saying, "who chooses to play the Smith-Morra,
or the Grand Prix attack?"

Can the statement, "black always wins" be refuted, or can it be shown to be
unprovable?

But not all false statements are easily refuted.

There is a great deal of evidence which strongly suggests that the
opening position is better for white. Namely, the consistently higher
winning percentage of white, combined with the fact that developed
theory - a huge amount of practical knowledge - shows a fairly
persistent white advantage.

So for the statement "black always wins" to be true, there'd have to be
some huge, paradigm-shifting understanding of the game of chess.

The fact that we can't prove it isn't so doesn't mean it's a reasonable
proposition.

-Ron