[btilly]

It's amazing to think about chess and how rules have been changed slightly over time for 1000 years.

Medieval chess was a very different game. For the most stark example, the queen did not get her modern move until around 1450.

The game has since been stable for about 500.

And yet something as basic as, "white moves first" was first suggested in 1857.

[lupire]

"white moves first" is an arbitrary/aesthetic/logistic choice, that doesn't affect gameplay logic.

Left-handed players may prefer Black goes first.

[QuercusMax]

Does "white moves first" actually affect the game, though? It's just a convention.

[dragonwriter]

> Does "white moves first" actually affect the game, though?

Materially, no, though it probably makes it less complex for humans by slightly simplifying the pattern recognition issues, particularly in the opening.

[dvirsky]

Statistically, white wins more than black.

[Jtsummers]

Because white goes first. The phrasing and context becomes important. There are two statements that are true but without them as context you end up with a misleading notion:

First player wins more than second in chess (because there's a slight advantage).

White goes first in chess.

Therefore, white wins more than black in chess.

However, that conclusion (what you present) is valueless without the context. If you reversed which color starts the game then we'd end up with "black wins more than white in Chess" as a conclusion and your statement would be false. And if there was no specific color which always started, we'd be left with just the first statement: First player wins more than second in chess.

[BeefWellington]

First player advantage seems to be consensus but I wonder how much of an effect piece layout has for players playing second.

If you reversed the king and queen placement for both players would the advantage be as great?

[InitialLastName]

Unless there are hidden psychological effects (which good players will attempt to surmount, as a matter of course), mirroring the board placement will make no difference.

There is no asymmetry of moves other than the starting position of the king and queen, so all strategy will simply be mirrored if the king and queen are mirrored.

[rodrigosetti]

Yes, if our definition of "game" is broadened to mean "culture" around this tradition (as historians might), rather than just reducing to the rules.

In this sense, it also includes the conventions, skill-level titles, playing etiquette, etc.

[JohnJamesRambo]

What did the queen do before then?

[btilly]

The queen was called a fers, and could only move one space diagonally according to most descriptions.

[gus_massa]

More details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_chess#History

[boomboomsubban]

Even more details, like how Queen Isabella may have inspired the change and that it was common to declare the queen in "check" for quite some time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_(chess)#History

[dvirsky]

> ... the ability of pawns to be queened was restricted while the original queen was still on the board, so as not to cause scandal by providing the king with more than one queen.

This is awesome :)