Hearthpwn

Quote from fusilli >>

Quote from Poghy >>

Playing as black is fine, it just requires a more reactive playstyle. So as a controi player, I prefer black.

I know that the data at ChessReplay.com shows that white has a better winrate, but that is because the whitetard aggro players dont know how to play reactive and there is also a lot of auto-conceding against white. So aggro white is better at lower ranks, but in top 100 legend the game is pretty balanced.

I know that there's parody in here, but you're just the wrong way around; top players have a higher advantage when W, which drops with lower ratings of players involved. presumably because with better play comes a better ability to exploit a minor tempo lead.

 At low-mid levels? You can get away with black being preferred. Pretty much any chess tablebase set to to GM only will tell you that W has a small edge over B, though. Enough that alternating colours is standard etc.. That extra tempo is crucial for topend play. Enough studies have been done on this.

In practicality - at club level, for example, where you're not likely to see people much over 200 ECF (~2200 ELO, NM territory; I say generally, though we have one local team with three 200+ players), W/B is relatively even. You can get away with losing a few tempo because you're unlikely to be punished too badly; it usually comes down to pieces/pawns/pawn structure as you move up the ranks, or sometimes just general sharpness and knowing theory/themes. Some lines are hard to analyze on the fly; things like white's Nxf7!? in the semislav, which leads to a pretty forced line; others you're better knowing the themes and common threats/ideas (I'd suggest the more positional openings here, something like a Berlin as an example). Unless you're titled, it's relatively moot.

 Nah, I dont believe that.

ChessReplay.com's statistics are absolute and unquestionable.

Quote from Pr1ncipe4i20 >>

Quote from yepapapepeap >>

Quote from Rohriant >>

Quote from yepapapepeap >>

because everyone who does not agree that the game has too much rng Just want the game to be chess, it is like the finer details for some people is just to complex to comprehend... make more jokes sure but you have no clue what you are talking about and it shows 

 And here I thought you will never, ever, ever again, read the wall of text.

 clearly you got a stick up your ass, might wanna keep that to yourself

 This kid with spider kid picture is a defensor of the Harvard Lawyer that write walls of text trying to be someone online? I forgot the name, but he has a Typical Trump Profile picture and always try to convince the crew that he finished university and play children's games while typing 300 lines without context and no explanation whatsoever why he always start the sentence with - "I'm Lawyer, bla bla bla, write stuff is nothing to me, I work, I have a salary and lots of free time to speak bullshit in a ******** website about cardgames ...and more sofisticate bla bla bla that is known as sophism most of time."

 What an absolutely accurate and representative quote.

I didn't go to Harvard, but all the rest regarding credentials is correct.  Thanks for thinking of me.

As to trying to convince anyone of anything, I could care less whether you believe it or not.  That changes absolutely nothing about my life.  I just enjoy folks who consider a page as a wall of text and yet will roll with it for 8 pages on a thread insisting that there's nothing to talk about.

As soon as I read Everything is rigged followed by like playing a little game called Chess lately, I knew it was going to be something special.

Here we go again fellows...