"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article 5MXCh.4112$2w.1396@trndny09,
"Chess One" wrote:

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.

But you eliminated the likely cause of this from my post [which are
really
the comments of Adorjan] - which are expectations from both white and
black
player. Do you understand this pyschology, which has sociological
outcome:-

I understand the principle, I just happen to think it's irrelevant in
this case. You (or, rather, Adorjan) are assuming a possible reason for
black's poorer results, and then, without any evidence are asserting it
to be true.

He has written 3 books on 'no evidence'. Ever read any of them? And he was a
tutor to Kasparov and Leko.

I think there's a much simpler reason for black's worse results: white
is better. Talk any mainline position, eight moves in. Heck, even the
ones which are theoretically equal (say, some QGD stuff, or Italian Game
stuff) are much easier for white to play. It's equal because, with best
play, black gets a draw - but black has plenty of places to go wrong
compared to white, and much bigger practical problems.

In your 'some QDG stuff' example, your decide if black if white is better or
worse by the chances to go wrong, rather than chances to go right?

In USA 1860 all doctors were male, in 2000 55% of graduating MDs were
female. A sociology! And another one based on a negative expectation,
'that
women would not like the sight of blood'.

I think you're trivializing a major sociological trend. The issue with
women in the workplace has always been one of opportunity as much as it
has been one of expectation.

They are the 'black' people, no? Is this trivial to you. I hardly think your
comment Germaine [pun intended]

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

I know they are hard questions, and its okay to say 'dunno', but changing
the question is avoidance. Both questions reveal something about the
state-of-the-art in 'solving chess' as well as in complex games theory.

Fine:

I don't know, and I don't particularly care.

Thank you then, for an honest statement. I am not sure I wish to continue
arguing an issue with someone who doesn't know or doesn't care, except to
say that my questions remain unanswered.

Phil Innes