Answers.Body: <blockquote>
    <p>When moves are randomized, is there an inherent advantage to the player who goes first, or the player who goes second?</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>The first player has a slight advantage. When black has made <em>n</em> moves, then white has made <em>n+1</em> when completing his turn. Even if black can mate on his <em>n+1</em>-th move black still loses. </p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p><strong>EDIT</strong> My analysis was too simple, but I got lucky. </p>
  
  <p>Over 29.28 billion random chess games white is slightly more likely to checkmate than Black (7.7340% vs 7.7293%). </p>
  
  <p>That means for games than end because of a checkmate, white wins 50.015% of them and black wins 49.985%.</p>
  
  <p>See: <a href="https://wismuth.com/chess/random-games.html" rel="noreferrer">https://wismuth.com/chess/random-games.html</a></p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-24T06:23:53.023Z
Answers.Text: When moves are being selected at random, it's not obvious to me that that's actually any kind of advantage for white.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Chris H
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-24T07:58:51.580Z
Answers.Text: @ChrisH - Knew someone had to do this. See  https://wismuth.com/chess/random-games.html Over  29.28 billion random chess games white is slightly more likely to checkmate than Black (7.7340% vs 7.7293%),
Answers.UserDisplayName: MaxW
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-24T08:09:53.553Z
Answers.Text: @MaxW that link and the statistics from it answer the question, it belongs in your answer.
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-25T09:46:06.747Z
Answers.Text: @ChrisH If every random move has some probability of being a winning move, then I would expect white to have a slight advantage because on average it gets to roll the dice more often than black.
Answers.UserDisplayName: JBentley
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-12-03T03:05:50.080Z
Answers.Text: @MaxW can you provide the source code for this? I can't conceptualize how two random-movers can possibly end up checkmating 15% of the time. I would have thought almost every game would end in a draw
Answers.UserDisplayName: Mobeus Zoom
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-24T04:14:04.723Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-04-26T00:31:35.040Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-04-26T00:31:35.040Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: MaxW
Answers.Body: <blockquote>
  <p><strong>Note:</strong> This used to be an 'update' in my question, but <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/users/19358/jafe">jafe</a> rightly points out that this is more of an answer in substance.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>I got the results back of 1000000 randomly-played games thanks to a small adjustment to <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/24359/of-all-the-possible-legal-chess-games-how-many-end-in-white-win-draw-and-black/24574#24574">itub's code</a>. I've whipped up a basic plot to show the results.</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/huTju.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/huTju.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
  <p>But if you prefer the specific numbers, here's the printout:</p>
  <pre><code>Counter({'is_insufficient_material': 474230,
  'can_claim_fifty_moves': 169123,
  'can_claim_threefold_repetition': 149398,
  '1-0': 75868,
  '0-1': 75239,
  'is_stalemate': 56142})
  </code></pre>
  <p>As promised in the comments on one of the answers, I was going to calculate a Wilson score interval with continuity correction. I wrote the following function in Python to accomplish that (<a href="https://gist.github.com/galenseilis/5175009c8c40550f04ae3587041cbf50" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Here</a> is the gist).</p>
  <p>And calling this function on the outcome counts where either white or black win, we have:</p>
  <pre><code>&gt;&gt;&gt; print(wilson_cont(75868, 75239))
  (0.4995569815292355, 0.5046054923932771)
  </code></pre>
  <p>This result, confirming some of the comments and answers below, is not significantly different from 50 %. As MaxW has pointed out in their answer, a similar calculation has been done on an even bigger sample that concluded that there <em>was</em> a statistically significant difference. One concern I have with all these calculations, mine and others, is that they become more sensitive to deviations as the sample size becomes larger. This means it is difficult to determine whether there's truly a difference using standard null hypothesis testing when our sample size becomes extremely large, but if we don't sample enough then our sample won't be representative enough. What this has illuminated to me is a form of conditional reasoning that <em><strong>if</strong> there is a difference, <strong>then</strong> it is extremely small in terms of effect size</em>.</p>
  <p>My thanks to everyone who has shown interest in this post, and contributed their reasoning, research, or code into it.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-12-02T00:51:40.803Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-10-14T17:44:45.567Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2022-10-14T17:44:45.567Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Galen
Answers.Body: <p>The preceding answers are great, but I can add one point that has just occurred to me.</p>
  
  <p>The statistical analysis suggests a small advantage for White in random chess. But any mating position can be "flipped" (pieces White&lt;->Black, person to move changed and flip board top&lt;-> bottom) to make a legal position with the other side mating. In other words, there are no cases where the parity present in the starting position can be kept all the way through to checkmate.</p>
  
  <p>In other, other words: in the hugeness of chess there are <em>exactly</em> the same number of mating positions for White as Black. So it's slightly paradoxical then that more random games are won by White. I guess the answer is that to flip the parity requires following some relatively improbable path of moves (e.g. 1.c3 d5 2.c4 to simulate 1.d4 c5).</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-26T07:22:22.943Z
Answers.Text: I am not sure there is complete parity, because a position is not only defined by the pieces on the board, but also by: **whose move it is**, **castling rights**, **en passant rights**, **three-fold repitition and 50 (75) move count**.
Answers.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-26T07:26:34.977Z
Answers.Text: If you take the shortest mate, fool's mate that requires 4 half-moves if black mates or 5 half-moves if white mates. The extra half move that white makes might in fact hinder him from having the option to mate at half-move 5. If you look at the data, this is in fact what happens, for short games black has an advantage, but for longer games it is white that catches up.
Answers.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-26T08:51:36.027Z
Answers.Text: Thanks user1583209: I've clarified now that person to move flips. Castling rights and en passant rights change. "Threefold/fivefold repetition of position" by definition implies that the count is not part of position. However any reachable position can be reached without repetition of position. Similarly, 50/75 move count is not a factor of position, else you could never repeat a position!
Answers.UserDisplayName: Laska
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-26T08:59:55.647Z
Answers.Text: On the fool's mate question yes I agree @user1583209. That's an interesting phenomenon - I guess that for *very* long games, Wh wins & Bl wins converge. Do you observe that?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Laska
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-26T09:41:13.137Z
Answers.Text: To Laska: That's not my data, I am just reading it. My guess would be that for very long games we approach 100% draw, so yes, in some sens w&b wins converge to 0.
Answers.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-26T09:42:35.150Z
Answers.Text: While every position can be flipped, it might require a different number of moves to reach it and therefore have a different probability.
Answers.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-26T09:46:19.820Z
Answers.Text: Yes - an alternative metric is that every game counts 1. That way we don't overweight the short games. 50-move-rule would certainly be a factor though, and difficult to discount. My original point though still stands I think, although the paradox is not hard to see through
Answers.UserDisplayName: Laska
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-26T05:42:46.130Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-04-26T08:48:22.493Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-04-26T08:48:22.493Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Laska
Answers.Body: <p>I once wrote a program to make random moves, had it play 1000 games, and these were my results:</p>
  <pre><code>Outcome                        Count  Avg. #moves
  -----------------------------  -----  -----------
  Draw by insufficient material    500          179
  Draw by fifty-move               157          208
  Draw by threefold repetition     147          164
  Black wins by checkmate           75           87
  White wins by checkmate           72           78
  Draw by stalemate                 49          138
  </code></pre>
  <p>The sample is too small to reach a firm conclusion, but as you can see, Black actually won more games than White! (I think that was just luck.) More noticeable, though, is that the overwhelming majority of games are draws.</p>
  <p>My hunch is that there is neither White nor Black have any advantage when making random moves. The oft-quoted first-move advantage of White is based on the notion that White has the initiative, but it is very easy to lose the initiative, and if you make random moves you are pretty much guaranteed to lose it very quickly. (Edit: thanks to MaxW's answer, I'm pleased to see that someone actually went through the trouble of simulating billions of games and found that actually White does have a very slight, but statistically significant advantage: <a href="https://wismuth.com/chess/random-games.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">7.7340% vs 7.7293%</a>).</p>
  <p>I originally posted the table above as an answer to a different question: <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/24359/of-all-the-possible-legal-chess-games-how-many-end-in-white-win-draw-and-black/24574#24574">If both sides move at random, but legally, then how many games will be a win for White or Black, if not a draw?</a> That answer goes into more speculation about why most games are draws, but more importantly has the Python source code in case it helps run your own simulations.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-24T07:09:28.663Z
Answers.Text: Someone said, the first move gives you the chance of making the first mistake.  It makes sense that, with random moves, white would lose more.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Mike Jones
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-24T07:37:17.193Z
Answers.Text: @MikeJones You migth make the first mistake, but the opponent has to take advantage of it, which at random play is unlikely. At first I thought white should have a slight advantage, because if you move first, you can mate first (and most mates would be early on in the game when there are many pieces on the board).  On the other hand,in  the shortest possible mate (fool's mate) it is black that mates.  That should have a probability of roughly one in a million at random play (4 halfmoves).
Answers.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-24T08:07:41.120Z
Answers.Text: @user1583209: say both sides have 20 first moves, and 25 second moves on average, that's about 250k four half move games, four of which are fool's mate (there is a choice between f3 and f4, and between e6 and e5). So roughly one in 60k. I think the fact that black can mate earlier might be enough to give him a tiny, tiny advantage, but random play should wipe out almost all of it. I'm amazed that one of the sides wins as often as they do.
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-24T08:09:08.487Z
Answers.Text: But the link in MaxW's answer shows it's white after all.
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-24T11:05:24.447Z
Answers.Text: There is no concept of "initiative" for genuinely random moves. If White threatens to take Black's queen on the next move, Black will ignore the threat, and if there are 50 legal moves available to white there is a 98% chance that White won't take the queen on the next move anyway.
Answers.UserDisplayName: alephzero
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-24T12:27:24.000Z
Answers.Text: I've seen some fool-like mates (by both sides) in my simulations, but they are rare, I'd say no more than 1/1000. Note that, on average, games that end in mate tend to be pretty long: about 80 full moves! Even if fool-like mates happen to biased in favor of one color, they'd still get lost in the noise.
Answers.UserDisplayName: itub
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-24T13:39:09.413Z
Answers.Text: @alephzero In fact, MaxW's simulation shows there might even be a "reverse initiative" effect. If white puts black into check, black must make a substantively "useful" move which has a higher-than-average chance of capturing the attacking piece. By checking black, white puts himself at a higher risk of material loss, making future checkmates less likely. White has an advantage to checkmate early, but early checks are actually a liability. The later liability doesn't quite balance out the early advantage, though.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Nuclear Hoagie
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-24T21:51:40.323Z
Answers.Text: I am not surprised that 50 moves kicks in foten - but threefold repetition is about as often?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Hagen von Eitzen
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-24T23:23:57.260Z
Answers.Text: @HagenvonEitzen, interesting question. Since the repeated positions can be many moves apart, maybe these are games where only the kings are moving around, with some blocked pawns to prevent a draw by insufficient material. Maybe enough such games manage to stumble into the threefold repetition before the 50 moves are up. Some day I'll look at specific examples to see how the repetitions look like...
Answers.UserDisplayName: itub
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-23T16:16:40.537Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-12-03T02:07:06.953Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2021-12-03T02:07:06.953Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: itub
Body: <p>Imagine we are pitting two automated players (bots) against each other, but instead of thoughtful moves made by the players, they make completely random choices. I realize that this is not really the point of playing chess, but it sets the groundwork for a theoretical chess question.</p>
  <p><strong>Is there an inherent advantage to the player who goes first, or the player who goes second?</strong></p>
  <p>'Inherent advantage' here means that the probability of one player winning is higher than the other, and that these randomized conditions don't account for how actual players would play. If such an advantage exists, it may be entirely wiped away by <em>how humans</em> play chess with each other. I want to emphasize that this question is not meant to generalize to either human or algorithmic play.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-06-26T09:28:32.727Z
Comments.Text: "Not significantly different" just means your sample is not large enough, not that there is no actual difference
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-06-28T16:56:42.207Z
Comments.Text: Sure! I was just making a clarification for people who could find themselves confused on the matter
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-12-02T00:48:30.723Z
Comments.Text: The "update" part seems like it should be an answer, not part of the question.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Jafe
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-12-03T10:12:08.563Z
Comments.Text: Does this answer your question? [If both sides move at random, but legally, then how many games will be a win for White or Black, if not a draw?](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/24359/if-both-sides-move-at-random-but-legally-then-how-many-games-will-be-a-win-for)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Zuriel
Tags: <theory><computer-chess>
Title: When moves are randomized, is there an inherent advantage to the player who goes first, or the player who goes second?
ThreadText: # When moves are randomized, is there an inherent advantage to the player who goes first, or the player who goes second?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2020-04-23)
  
  Imagine we are pitting two automated players (bots) against each other, but instead of thoughtful moves made by the players, they make completely random choices. I realize that this is not really the point of playing chess, but it sets the groundwork for a theoretical chess question.
  
  **Is there an inherent advantage to the player who goes first, or the player who goes second?**
  
  'Inherent advantage' here means that the probability of one player winning is higher than the other, and that these randomized conditions don't account for how actual players would play. If such an advantage exists, it may be entirely wiped away by *how humans* play chess with each other. I want to emphasize that this question is not meant to generalize to either human or algorithmic play.
  
  **Tags:** theory, computer-chess
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: "Not significantly different" just means your sample is not large enough, not that there is no actual difference  
  > **username_1**: Sure! I was just making a clarification for people who could find themselves confused on the matter  
  > **username_2**: The "update" part seems like it should be an answer, not part of the question.  
  > **username_3**: Does this answer your question? [If both sides move at random, but legally, then how many games will be a win for White or Black, if not a draw?](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/24359/if-both-sides-move-at-random-but-legally-then-how-many-games-will-be-a-win-for)  
  
  ---
  
  ## 4 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_11 on 2020-04-23. Score: 26 | Accepted answer
  
  I once wrote a program to make random moves, had it play 1000 games, and these were my results:
  
  ```
  Outcome                        Count  Avg. #moves
  -----------------------------  -----  -----------
  Draw by insufficient material    500          179
  Draw by fifty-move               157          208
  Draw by threefold repetition     147          164
  Black wins by checkmate           75           87
  White wins by checkmate           72           78
  Draw by stalemate                 49          138
  
  ```
  
  The sample is too small to reach a firm conclusion, but as you can see, Black actually won more games than White! (I think that was just luck.) More noticeable, though, is that the overwhelming majority of games are draws.
  
  My hunch is that there is neither White nor Black have any advantage when making random moves. The oft-quoted first-move advantage of White is based on the notion that White has the initiative, but it is very easy to lose the initiative, and if you make random moves you are pretty much guaranteed to lose it very quickly. (Edit: thanks to username_4's answer, I'm pleased to see that someone actually went through the trouble of simulating billions of games and found that actually White does have a very slight, but statistically significant advantage: [7.7340% vs 7.7293%](https://wismuth.com/chess/random-games.html)).
  
  I originally posted the table above as an answer to a different question: [If both sides move at random, but legally, then how many games will be a win for White or Black, if not a draw?](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/24359/of-all-the-possible-legal-chess-games-how-many-end-in-white-win-draw-and-black/24574#24574) That answer goes into more speculation about why most games are draws, but more importantly has the Python source code in case it helps run your own simulations.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_12**: Someone said, the first move gives you the chance of making the first mistake.  It makes sense that, with random moves, white would lose more.  
  > **username_10**: @username_12 You migth make the first mistake, but the opponent has to take advantage of it, which at random play is unlikely. At first I thought white should have a slight advantage, because if you move first, you can mate first (and most mates would be early on in the game when there are many pieces on the board).  On the other hand,in  the shortest possible mate (fool's mate) it is black that mates.  That should have a probability of roughly one in a million at random play (4 halfmoves).  
  > **username_6**: @username_10: say both sides have 20 first moves, and 25 second moves on average, that's about 250k four half move games, four of which are fool's mate (there is a choice between f3 and f4, and between e6 and e5). So roughly one in 60k. I think the fact that black can mate earlier might be enough to give him a tiny, tiny advantage, but random play should wipe out almost all of it. I'm amazed that one of the sides wins as often as they do.  
  > **username_6**: But the link in username_4's answer shows it's white after all.  
  > **username_13**: There is no concept of "initiative" for genuinely random moves. If White threatens to take Black's queen on the next move, Black will ignore the threat, and if there are 50 legal moves available to white there is a 98% chance that White won't take the queen on the next move anyway.  
  > **username_11**: I've seen some fool-like mates (by both sides) in my simulations, but they are rare, I'd say no more than 1/1000. Note that, on average, games that end in mate tend to be pretty long: about 80 full moves! Even if fool-like mates happen to biased in favor of one color, they'd still get lost in the noise.  
  > **username_14**: @username_13 In fact, username_4's simulation shows there might even be a "reverse initiative" effect. If white puts black into check, black must make a substantively "useful" move which has a higher-than-average chance of capturing the attacking piece. By checking black, white puts himself at a higher risk of material loss, making future checkmates less likely. White has an advantage to checkmate early, but early checks are actually a liability. The later liability doesn't quite balance out the early advantage, though.  
  > **username_15**: I am not surprised that 50 moves kicks in foten - but threefold repetition is about as often?  
  > **username_11**: @username_15, interesting question. Since the repeated positions can be many moves apart, maybe these are games where only the kings are moving around, with some blocked pawns to prevent a draw by insufficient material. Maybe enough such games manage to stumble into the threefold repetition before the 50 moves are up. Some day I'll look at specific examples to see how the repetitions look like...  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2020-04-24. Score: 22
  
  > When moves are randomized, is there an inherent advantage to the player who goes first, or the player who goes second?
  
  The first player has a slight advantage. When black has made *n* moves, then white has made *n+1* when completing his turn. Even if black can mate on his *n+1*-th move black still loses.
  
  ---
  
  **EDIT** My analysis was too simple, but I got lucky.
  
  Over 29.28 billion random chess games white is slightly more likely to checkmate than Black (7.7340% vs 7.7293%).
  
  That means for games than end because of a checkmate, white wins 50.015% of them and black wins 49.985%.
  
  See: <https://wismuth.com/chess/random-games.html>
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_5**: When moves are being selected at random, it's not obvious to me that that's actually any kind of advantage for white.  
  > **username_4**: @username_5 - Knew someone had to do this. See  https://wismuth.com/chess/random-games.html Over  29.28 billion random chess games white is slightly more likely to checkmate than Black (7.7340% vs 7.7293%),  
  > **username_6**: @username_4 that link and the statistics from it answer the question, it belongs in your answer.  
  > **username_7**: @username_5 If every random move has some probability of being a winning move, then I would expect white to have a slight advantage because on average it gets to roll the dice more often than black.  
  > **username_8**: @username_4 can you provide the source code for this? I can't conceptualize how two random-movers can possibly end up checkmating 15% of the time. I would have thought almost every game would end in a draw  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_0 on 2021-12-02. Score: 4
  
  > **Note:** This used to be an 'update' in my question, but [username_2](https://chess.stackexchange.com/users/19358/username_2) rightly points out that this is more of an answer in substance.
  
  I got the results back of 1000000 randomly-played games thanks to a small adjustment to [username_11's code](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/24359/of-all-the-possible-legal-chess-games-how-many-end-in-white-win-draw-and-black/24574#24574). I've whipped up a basic plot to show the results.
  
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/huTju.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/huTju.png)
  
  But if you prefer the specific numbers, here's the printout:
  
  ```
  Counter({'is_insufficient_material': 474230,
  'can_claim_fifty_moves': 169123,
  'can_claim_threefold_repetition': 149398,
  '1-0': 75868,
  '0-1': 75239,
  'is_stalemate': 56142})
  
  ```
  
  As promised in the comments on one of the answers, I was going to calculate a Wilson score interval with continuity correction. I wrote the following function in Python to accomplish that ([Here](https://gist.github.com/galenseilis/5175009c8c40550f04ae3587041cbf50) is the gist).
  
  And calling this function on the outcome counts where either white or black win, we have:
  
  ```
  >>> print(wilson_cont(75868, 75239))
  (0.4995569815292355, 0.5046054923932771)
  
  ```
  
  This result, confirming some of the comments and answers below, is not significantly different from 50 %. As username_4 has pointed out in their answer, a similar calculation has been done on an even bigger sample that concluded that there *was* a statistically significant difference. One concern I have with all these calculations, mine and others, is that they become more sensitive to deviations as the sample size becomes larger. This means it is difficult to determine whether there's truly a difference using standard null hypothesis testing when our sample size becomes extremely large, but if we don't sample enough then our sample won't be representative enough. What this has illuminated to me is a form of conditional reasoning that ***if** there is a difference, **then** it is extremely small in terms of effect size*.
  
  My thanks to everyone who has shown interest in this post, and contributed their reasoning, research, or code into it.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2020-04-26. Score: 1
  
  The preceding answers are great, but I can add one point that has just occurred to me.
  
  The statistical analysis suggests a small advantage for White in random chess. But any mating position can be "flipped" (pieces White<->Black, person to move changed and flip board top<-> bottom) to make a legal position with the other side mating. In other words, there are no cases where the parity present in the starting position can be kept all the way through to checkmate.
  
  In other, other words: in the hugeness of chess there are *exactly* the same number of mating positions for White as Black. So it's slightly paradoxical then that more random games are won by White. I guess the answer is that to flip the parity requires following some relatively improbable path of moves (e.g. 1.c3 d5 2.c4 to simulate 1.d4 c5).
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_10**: I am not sure there is complete parity, because a position is not only defined by the pieces on the board, but also by: **whose move it is**, **castling rights**, **en passant rights**, **three-fold repitition and 50 (75) move count**.  
  > **username_10**: If you take the shortest mate, fool's mate that requires 4 half-moves if black mates or 5 half-moves if white mates. The extra half move that white makes might in fact hinder him from having the option to mate at half-move 5. If you look at the data, this is in fact what happens, for short games black has an advantage, but for longer games it is white that catches up.  
  > **username_9**: Thanks username_10: I've clarified now that person to move flips. Castling rights and en passant rights change. "Threefold/fivefold repetition of position" by definition implies that the count is not part of position. However any reachable position can be reached without repetition of position. Similarly, 50/75 move count is not a factor of position, else you could never repeat a position!  
  > **username_9**: On the fool's mate question yes I agree @username_10. That's an interesting phenomenon - I guess that for *very* long games, Wh wins & Bl wins converge. Do you observe that?  
  > **username_10**: To username_9: That's not my data, I am just reading it. My guess would be that for very long games we approach 100% draw, so yes, in some sens w&b wins converge to 0.  
  > **username_10**: While every position can be flipped, it might require a different number of moves to reach it and therefore have a different probability.  
  > **username_9**: Yes - an alternative metric is that every game counts 1. That way we don't overweight the short games. 50-move-rule would certainly be a factor though, and difficult to discount. My original point though still stands I think, although the paradox is not hard to see through  
  
  ---
  
  