In standard Chess, the one who plays White has an inherent advantage over the one who plays Black.

Thank you, JonMilne, for making this debate possible. Before we get into the core of this debate, allow me to offer this preamble:If we were to turn the resolution around and ask ourselves, "In standard Chess, does Black have an advantage over White because he plays second?" I feel the responses would be unanimous: of course not, why would he? (My opponent has said he will try to show that it is actually advantageous to be Black in Chess, despite it being superfluous to his onus in this debate; this would be very interesting if he could as I've never seen a convincing argument for Black having an advantage.)Yet when asked "Does White have an advantage over Black because he plays first?" the answer comes less quickly. The average Chess player, particularly one sensitive to the subject, would be inclined to argue the playing field is even, though this is usually grounded more in want than reason. "Whoever wins a game of Chess will do so by skill and skill alone. No other factor plays a role." That is what many of us wish to believe.Then what reason do we use to dismiss the significance of White’s first move? It is a move like any other, and just as significant. Because of it, however many moves Black has thus far played (X), White will have played either X or X+1. He therefore has speed above Black, initiative above Black. Keep this in mind while reading the coming arguments and White's first-move advantage will become clear.Now, without further ado, I present my arguments:I. Control of the gameThroughout the course of a Chess match, control of the game may switch from one player to another, as he/she gains a superior position or initiates a powerful attack. It can be said that whichever player whose moves are forced is certainly not in control of the game. And by using the initiative granted by the first move, White can more easily force his opponent's moves in the opening.My argument here can be summarized with the following syllogism:P1: The player who is more capable of forcing his opponent's moves is in control of the game.P2: At the start of a Chess match, the player who is more capable of forcing his opponent's moves is White.C: At the start of a Chess match, White is in control of the game.The above syllogism is logically airtight, so if the premises are granted, the conclusion cannot be avoided. Warrants for the premises are as follows:P1: The player who is more capable of forcing his opponent's moves is in control of the game.Take, as an obvious example, a player who is in check. He can't make any move that pleases him. He must somehow move himself out of check. Many checkmates that are read four or five moves ahead involve putting the opponent in check on almost every turn (if not every turn), because it forces your opponent to make an obvious, and therefore easily planned for, move. The one constantly in check is simply doing what he has to, and what his opponent wants him to do. Therefore, his opponent, the one doing the checking, is (at least temporarily) in control of the game.One doesn't necessarily have to have a superior position to be in control of the game. For example, consider a match where one of the players has more minor pieces than his opponent and is just one move away from an unpreventable checkmate. The only available option to the other player (in this hypothetical scenario) is using the queen to check the opposing king (to which he only has one legal response). Then, check again (to which he moves back to his original position). Check, check, check, back and forth, until stalemate. Though his position was inferior, by forcing his opponent's moves and thereby taking control of the game, he was able to gain a more satisfactory conclusion than the alternative.To synopsize, having control of the game is how a player can gain a superior position or quickly reach some other desired end without unwanted retaliation. And to do this, he must be more capable of forcing responses from his opponent than visa versa.P2: At the start of a Chess match, the player who is more capable of forcing his opponent's moves is White.By playing the first move, White sets the course for not only the opening, but the entire rest of the match. After e4 (the most common opening for White), Black does have a few options, some more popular than others, some of which may even necessitate a certain response from White, but they are all moves in response to e4, and therefore are all moves that can be said to have been forced by White and could be easily predicted by him.Because it is Black who is forced to play more defensively, to respond to White's moves within certain responses, it is therefore White who is more capable of forcing his opponent's moves than visa versa.C: At the start of a Chess match, White is in control of the game.II. InitiativeConsider if you could pass in Chess (not make any move at all but still declare your turn over), except during a Zugzwang position (a position where it would actually be disadvantageous to make a move). Would anyone do it? No, of course not, why would they, unless to purposely hand some advantage over to the opponent?The same reasoning applies to the first move as well. Why would White pass his first move? He wouldn't, unless to freely give up an advantage.The syllogism for this argument is as follows:P1: In an even, non-Zugzwang position, it would be more advantageous to make the next move than not.P2: The start of a Chess match is an even, non-Zugzwang position.P3: It is White's turn at the start of a Chess match.C: At the start of a Chess match, it is more advantageous to be White than not.Again, this argument is logically valid, so unless one of the premises is untrue, the conclusion must be accepted.P1: In an even, non-Zugzwang position, it would be more advantageous to make the next move than not.A non-Zugzwang position is one where there are moves the players want to make, or at least one move the players want to make. Therefore, it should be obvious that being the one able to make these wanted moves first would be preferable.P2: The start of a Chess match is an even, non-Zugzwang position.This seems not only true, but obviously true. The two starting positions at the beginning of a Chess game are perfectly mirrored off of each other, and so must be seen as even. If my opponent wishes to dispute this, please do so next round, but I don't feel wasting more effort on this point is necessary for now.P3: It is White's turn at the start of a Chess match.This is, by standard Chess rules, an indisputable fact and was outlined in the instigation.C: At the start of a Chess match, it is more advantageous to be White than not.III. Grandmaster statisticsIf it were true that White does indeed have an inherent advantage, however minute, then we'd expect this to be reflected in the game records of the world’s greatest players. And, in fact, it is, quite clearly:In the 2009 CEGT chess engines tournament (where the greatest Chess computers were pitted against each other), we found White won 34.7 percent of the time, while Black won only 24 percent (the remaining 41.3 percent being draws). [1]Currently, of the 668,956 games logged into the database on ChessGames.com (where the ELO rating of the average player is 2211), White wins 37.35 percent of the times, whereas Black wins only 27.40 percent (the remaining 35.25 percent being draws). [2]The difference in winning percentages here is certainly not small enough for my opponent to dismiss as coincidence.Now over to you, JonMilne.Soucres:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] http://www.chessgames.com...