That's kind of a stupid question, sorry. This really only matters at the top because there even the smallest advantage is likely to be decisive. And even top GMs don't go for a draw with black every single time. For amateurs this doesn't matter at all. When two amateurs play, both players make many mistakes, so it doesn't matter if white has a small opening advantage.
Do You Try to Draw as Black on Principle?
Sort:
Oldest
I win plenty of games as black. I just play to win.
Unfortunately, that is what many say: White is the superior side from the getgo, but there is no proof. Not even engines can prove this because strong engines have won as black, even against other strong engines.
I think that this should not be instilled into everybody's head because it makes the game seem worse than it actually is. Chess isn't solved, unlike connect 4 and checkers and reversi( Othello) is close to getting solved, so there are still many, many years to go before someone can prove that chess is either a winning or losing game.
NEVER!!! Fisher used to say his secret was that he always played for a win, even as Black.
win
I play the opening, and if my opponent played badly I try to win.
I try to lose, I find it's better for my self esteem
FirebrandX wrote:
yourChess wrote:
so there are still many, many years to go before someone can prove that chess is either a winning or losing game.
It's actually pretty well known from ICCF games that chess is a draw if black aims for it. For example, there's no known way to generate significant complications in the Berlin or Petrov defenses. Basically, the game of chess can be drawn countless ways.
So what is white's advantage? Well my own experience on ICCF has lead me to conclude that advantage is only in the mistake threshold. Black can draw with careful play, whereas white can draw even after making a minor mistake. That's all it really boils down to.
Excellent comment.
Also, Kasparov's play against Karpov in one of their WCC matches -- forcing draws repeatedly (with both colors) until Karpov was near physical collapse, is another example.
I always try to win with Black and expect to win.
If you play for a draw with Black, then often you will make inferior moves.
Absolutely, although I don't play exclusively for a draw as black, if I get a sterile, equal position out of the opening as black, I'm happy. However if I get the same position as white I would consider my opening a failure.
I heard masters say that if you play for a draw, you'll most likely lose. As I see it, playing for a draw at patzer level (mine) is s.s. (super-stupid).
Play to reach a level endgame. Then play to win.
It cuts down on your errors, and give you practice in all three phases of the game.
Simple, pragmatic chess.
If you ever reach USCF 2000+, then write your own game plan. Until then, it's all about study and practice, and maybe even a coach.
Whites advantage is that they get to pick the "style" the game is played. As long as you play good solid moves as black theres no reason not to try to win.
bolzenbert wrote:
That's kind of a stupid question, sorry. This really only matters at the top because there even the smallest advantage is likely to be decisive. And even top GMs don't go for a draw with black every single time. For amateurs this doesn't matter at all. When two amateurs play, both players make many mistakes, so it doesn't matter if white has a small opening advantage.
spot on
bolzenbert wrote:
That's kind of a stupid question, sorry. This really only matters at the top because there even the smallest advantage is likely to be decisive. And even top GMs don't go for a draw with black every single time. For amateurs this doesn't matter at all. When two amateurs play, both players make many mistakes, so it doesn't matter if white has a small opening advantage.
It's not a stupid question. After over 750 games of live standard chess (longer time controls), I have a significantly better winning percentage as white. I'm sure a lot of members here can say the same. I wish I had tried to play for a draw in a lot of those games I lost as black.
incantevoleutopia:
If you're a patzer, then...?!
It's a good question and nothing is wrong to play for a draw. It's a problem to try to win where it's needed to defend. It's my problem too.
Not on principle, but I am not a person who *always* plays for a win. Usually I try to get chances for a win, but sometimes I play solidly (with either color) and am not averse to a draw.
There are many reasons for this, including tournament standings, physical condition, your history with the opponent in question, and yes, rating considerations.
Sometimes it pays to play solidly and quietly, especially if you KNOW (or have excellent reason to believe) your opponent will force the action and come after you at some point. I have beaten a strong master the last two tournament games I faced him because I know his temperament and tournament philosophy.
Few things are as valuable as knowing your opponent's personality (not just their chess moves) and having time to formulate a game plan against them...
Whether from the start, in a close game, or a losing game, do you try to draw your games as BLACK?
I know some people feel that BLACK is at a disadvantage from the beginning of a chess game and therefore a draw is considered a good goal or result to have as BLACK.
To me, this feels kind of demoralizing and I never try to just draw as BLACK. I go for the win.
However, recently I've noticed that I tend to lose more often as BLACK and have wondered whether I should go for the draw.