[linearrust]

> People get hung up on the unfair White advantage in chess, but actually it's not large enough.

It's fairly significant given the 'theoretical' assumption that perfect play always ends in a draw. However, in practice, whites wins significantly more than black.

> In tennis, on every point there's a big advantage to the server. Not because he "gets to go first" but because he gets a second chance in some situations.

Yes. It allows servers to take chances and go all out on their first serve. It's extremely beneficial to power servers. But you don't get 'take backs' in chess. So your analogy doesn't apply. You can't gamble with white and if black knows the opening, then start all over with another opening.

> The point is that chess isn't in need of evening out the first-move advantage.

As long as both players get equal chances to play with white. No player would agree to a tournament where you get black 10 times and your opponents gets white. Just like no tennis player will agree to a tournament where his opponents gets to serve all game.

As you computer chess stats show, it seems like better play leads to more draw. And the assumption that if chess is solved, then perfect chess is always a draw. But that's not how it works in the real world. White has a distinct advantage. Whether it is due to human psychology or something else altogether is up for debate.

[vsuperpower2021]

The statement still applies even if you found one thing that isn't literally the same. The point wasn't "you can do takebacks in chess so this is exactly the same!!!" but that the advantage for moving first in chess is much smaller than is already accepted in other sports.

[linearrust]

> The point wasn't "you can do takebacks in chess so this is exactly the same!!!"

That wasn't my point either. My point is that if chess allowed white takebacks ( as in tennis ), the white advantage would skyrocket to 70%+. The analogy was pointless because it wasn't comparing likes with likes.

> but that the advantage for moving first in chess is much smaller than is already accepted in other sports.

Yes. But in most sports, you get equal or close to equal chances to 'move first'. In tennis, you alternate serves with each game. In football, you take turns playing offense. In chess, it's not necessarily like that. Some tournaments you get to play the same opponent with black and with white in equal amounts. But in many tournaments, that's not the case.

So in tennis, you are pretty much guaranteed an equal game since both sides get to serve. But in chess, even though the first move advantage is less, it's still more significant than in tennis many tournaments don't have equal games of white and black.