Answers.Body: <p>The basic dynamic in modern top-level chess is that White wants to find a way to get some edge, often quite small, out of the opening. Black wants to find a way to equalize or otherwise draw. This means that a lot of what has been rejected by White are lines that lead to equality. So, I would agree that a top-10 player wanting a draw with White will basically never lose because he will simply select one of those ways that has drawn in the past. With Black, though, I disagree because making a draw is the essence of the challenge and often eludes even Carlsen.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-03-20T23:29:28.693Z
Answers.Text: If the black top grandmaster needs a win, and the white top grandmaster is confident with a draw, I do not see any reason why the black top grandmaster should not have a realistic chance to win, even if white does everything to draw the game.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Peter
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-08-08T15:40:56.453Z
Answers.Text: So, you are asserting that there is a difference in between playing black and white, and that white has an advantage ? (Thats not obvious and is a big assertion.)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Saikat
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-08-08T17:04:26.293Z
Answers.Text: It's blatantly obvious. Look at the scoring statistics at any level of play for white vs black. What's not obvious is that white is winning; in fact, that is probably false. Having an advantage and winning, though, are two different things.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Cleveland
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-03-20T13:29:00.440Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-03-20T13:29:00.440Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Cleveland
Body: <p>I often heard the claim that top grand masters can assure a draw, if they
   do not risk anything. I disagree with this claim.</p>
  
  <p>What are the reasons that so many people think that very strong players cannot
   lose a game, if they do not play risky moves ?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-03-20T09:34:34.810Z
Comments.Text: Who are these many people? Have you done any polls regarding this? Because it looks like a speculation. And also if many people think so, they might have many different reasons. By the way, many people during the football match think their team would win (the same with another many people voting for another team).
Comments.UserDisplayName: Salvador Dali
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-03-20T10:05:39.313Z
Comments.Text: They can certainly lose against a computer...
Comments.UserDisplayName: Corvus
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-03-20T14:05:48.777Z
Comments.Text: Well, I'm sure they'd lose every single game against Stockfish 6. Especially 4CPU.
Comments.UserDisplayName: user5649
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-03-23T23:56:43.283Z
Comments.Text: @Peter where are you taking this statistics from? Please share it with us, or  simply do not write speculations.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Salvador Dali
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-03-26T13:51:46.113Z
Comments.Text: I deleted my comment, but the claim that EVERYONE loses EVERY game against Stockfish 6, seems even more speculative to me.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Peter
Tags: <draw><famous-players>
Title: Why do many people think that top grand masters can always reach a draw?
ThreadText: # Why do many people think that top grand masters can always reach a draw?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2015-03-20)
  
  I often heard the claim that top grand masters can assure a draw, if they
  do not risk anything. I disagree with this claim.
  
  What are the reasons that so many people think that very strong players cannot
  lose a game, if they do not play risky moves ?
  
  **Tags:** draw, famous-players
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Who are these many people? Have you done any polls regarding this? Because it looks like a speculation. And also if many people think so, they might have many different reasons. By the way, many people during the football match think their team would win (the same with another many people voting for another team).  
  > **username_2**: They can certainly lose against a computer...  
  > **username_3**: Well, I'm sure they'd lose every single game against Stockfish 6. Especially 4CPU.  
  > **username_1**: @username_0 where are you taking this statistics from? Please share it with us, or  simply do not write speculations.  
  > **username_0**: I deleted my comment, but the claim that EVERYONE loses EVERY game against Stockfish 6, seems even more speculative to me.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2015-03-20. Score: 1
  
  The basic dynamic in modern top-level chess is that White wants to find a way to get some edge, often quite small, out of the opening. Black wants to find a way to equalize or otherwise draw. This means that a lot of what has been rejected by White are lines that lead to equality. So, I would agree that a top-10 player wanting a draw with White will basically never lose because he will simply select one of those ways that has drawn in the past. With Black, though, I disagree because making a draw is the essence of the challenge and often eludes even Carlsen.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: If the black top grandmaster needs a win, and the white top grandmaster is confident with a draw, I do not see any reason why the black top grandmaster should not have a realistic chance to win, even if white does everything to draw the game.  
  > **username_5**: So, you are asserting that there is a difference in between playing black and white, and that white has an advantage ? (Thats not obvious and is a big assertion.)  
  > **username_4**: It's blatantly obvious. Look at the scoring statistics at any level of play for white vs black. What's not obvious is that white is winning; in fact, that is probably false. Having an advantage and winning, though, are two different things.  
  
  ---
  
  