Science proves chess isn't fair: inequality begins at the first move

For centuries, chess has been regarded as the epitome of pure strategy, mental equilibrium and intellectual challenge par excellence. Yet chess may not be as fair as we're led to believe.

A new statistical analysis calls into question the traditional arrangement of pieces on the chessboard, suggesting that the game is unbalanced from the very first move.

The matter intrigues not only professionals, but also those who play for passion, perhaps in the evening, in front of a wooden chessboard or on an app.

White's advantage

In the chess world, it's almost an open secret: those who play with white have the advantage. The reason is simple and concrete. Playing first means setting the pace, immediately occupying the central space and forcing the opponent to react. In matches between experienced players, this seemingly small advantage can become decisive.

For years, this was thought to be an acceptable, almost inevitable flaw. But today, thanks to data analysis and chess engines (computer programs capable of analyzing chess positions and variants), this suspicion is taking on the form of a mathematical certainty.

When a famous chess player tries to change the rules

In the 1990s, the legendary Bobby Fischer (11th World Chess Champion) had an idea as simple as it was revolutionary. To reduce the importance of memorized openings and in order to make games more creative, he devised a variation in which the pieces in the first row did not follow the classical pattern.

Thus was born Chess960, also known as Fischer Random Chess. The rules remain the same, the pieces don't move, but the initial arrangement of the pieces changes each time, generating 960 possible configurations. The idea was clear: less automatism, more reasoning. And, at least on paper, more balance between Black and White.

Statistics tell a different story

A study conducted by Marc Barthelemy, a researcher at Paris-Saclay University, puts everything into question. By analyzing the 960 positions in Chess960 using the Stockfish open-source chess engine, Barthelemy measured the initial advantage and decision-making complexity of each configuration.

The result is surprising and, in a way, disconcerting. In 99.6% of cases, white retains an advantage. The pieces change, the order changes, but the problem remains. According to the researcher, first-move advantage is not a defect of the traditional chessboard, but a structural feature of the game.

In other words, it doesn't matter how we shuffle the pieces: starting first always counts.

Another interesting aspect that emerged from the study has to do with our relationship with the traditional chessboard. The layout we've always known wouldn't have been chosen because it was fairer, but because it was visually symmetrical and easy to remember. A fact that makes the game more aesthetic as opposed to functional.

According to Barthélemy, classical chess has a higher average complexity and decision asymmetry than many other possible configurations. This doesn't make them any less interesting, but it does invite us to look at them with a different, less romantic and more conscious eye.

Does a 'fairest' position really exist?

Among the 960 configurations on Chess960, one particular configuration stands out for its near-perfect balance. This is the so-called 198 position, in which the White's advantage and the difficulty of decision-making between the two players are practically reduced to zero. A kind of ideal meeting point, at least according to numbers.

On the other hand, there's a configuration that generates the greatest possible complexity, turning every game into a strategic labyrinth from the very first moves. Two sides of the same coin, showing just how much the game can change simply by moving the pieces.

This research in no way detracts from the fascination of chess or its history. Rather, it adds an extra layer of awareness. Knowing that perfect parity doesn't exist can help us design fairer tournaments, experiment with new solutions and, why not, make the game even more stimulating.

Source : arXiv

(MP/©GreenMe.it/Translation and adaptation: The Global Nature/Pic: Unsplash)