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

I. Control of the gameP1: 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. Torvlad elucidates his issue with the second premise: because White plays first, he must play the aggressor. And because he must play the aggressor, his moves are more predictable. And because his moves are more predictable, he is not the player who is more capable of forcing his opponent's moves. He says this is the case because White can often be frustrated after an offensive strategy that fails due to a mere block by Black. Obviously, White should not be trying to checkmate Black within the first few moves; he will certainly become quickly frustrated if this is his strategy. Torvald seems to be confusing the purpose of White's offensive openings; it's not to set up a ninja-like quick death for Black. It's simply to expand influence on the board (most importantly, the center). When White plays A and Black plays B to block a potential, devastating C attack, White is not frustrated for losing the chance to play C; on the contrary, he's satisfied to have been able to play A without losing control of the game. And because Black must either play moves like B or risk potential, devastating attacks, his moves are the more predictable ones. White, on the other hand, has the freedom to attack (or threaten to attack) as he wishes, which could never be more predictable than Black's needed defensive moves. Torvald goes on to explain how Black might be able to force White into a Zugzwang position later in the game due to playing more defensively; these arguments bleed into the next major point of the debate so I will address them there. II. InitiativeP1: In an even, non-Zugzwang position, it is 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. My opponent did not directly object to any of this argument's premises. Instead, to counter this argument, Torvald introduces a syllogism of his own, outlining how White can be forced into a Zugzwang position by virtue of having the first move. Let's take a look at his argument:P1: Moving first forces an aggressive strategy. P2: Mandatory-aggressive strategies are easily predictable. P3: A predictable strategy is more easily-manipulated. P4: An easily-manipulable strategy may be more easily forced into a zugzwang position. P5: A zugzwang position is not advantageous. C: It is not advantageous to move first. Since the conclusions of our arguments contradict each other, of course, only one of them can be true. So which one fails? Well, we have so far seen no reason to believe my own argument fails. P2 and P3 of my argument are indisputable, so the only premise to attack would be P1; however, to deny the truth of P1 would be to accept its absurd negation: In an even, non-Zugzwang position, the next move played, no matter how good, does not affect the outcome of the game. This is obviously untrue, since every move played affects the outcome of a game, and every move White plays should somehow benefit White (in a non-Zugzwang position). So as it stands, my argument seems rock-solid; simply knowing this would be enough to deny my opponent's argument, since his conclusion logically buds heads with the conclusion I flawlessly established. But regardless, let's take a look at the specific reasons why my opponent's argument does fail:(a) P2 may be true, but is misleading. Any mandatory move is predictable; the question is, is a mandatory defensive move more predictable than an offensive one? As I stated earlier, it is. Theoretically, an attack can come from any piece, from any space on the board, but a block can only come from the pieces which can directly block the attack. (b) Even if it were somehow true that an aggressive move is more predictable than a defensive one, there is no way for the defending player to utilize this predictability in a way that can be said to be of any significant help. That is, even if Black knows White will play an offensive first, second, and third move, there is nothing Black can do to prepare for it beforehand. (Black, the player, can study opening lines before the game to prepare, but that is an example of how Black can prepare in practice, not in theory. In theory, Black cannot prepare his pieces for White's opening assault no matter how predictable it is since, legally, he can make no moves beforehand. )As an example of how unhelpful predictability can be, when one player plays a string of three or four checks in a row (finally resulting in an inevitable checkmate), the player who is being checked may be able to predict that he will be put in check again on the next move, but that doesn't necessarily mean there is a way to prevent it. (c) As a final note, for the record, a Zugzwang position is a very rare thing. Most high-level games begin and end without a Zugzwang position ever occurring for either player. With that in mind, it seems absurd to be persuaded by an argument which depends on establishing the premise that Black will likely be able to force White into a Zugzwang position later in the game due to playing more defensively. Even though I hold the position that White is more capable of forcing Black's moves, I wouldn't say it is therefore likely he can force Black into a Zugzwang position halfway or so through the game. Taking into consideration that Torvald's argument suffers flaws (a), (b), and (c) and that my argument suffers no flaws at all, it ought to be clear which of our conclusions we should embrace. III. Grandmaster StatisticsMy opponent has conceded this argument. He does, however, make the point that grandmaster statistics only prove that White has an inherent advantage in practice, not in theory (and this is a debate concerning the latter, not the former), which is true. I presented the grandmaster statistics as evidence to compliment my arguments, not as an individual proof. That is to say, if it were true that White has an inherent advantage in theory, then we should expect that to be apparent in practice. And it is apparent in practice. It doesn't prove the validity of my arguments, but it is hardly irrelevant as my opponent would like for us to believe. Likewise, if it were true that neither White nor Black had an inherent advantage in theory, then we should expect that to be apparent in practice. But grandmaster statistics do not support such a theory; they support the theory that White does have an advantage.