Interestingly, I win as Black more often than I win as White, even when playing against myself. Especially in the most aggressive openings for Black, such as the Sicilian or KID. And this even though SF's eval of the latter always shows a slight advantage for White throughout much of the opening. (But I know a lot of people say SF is just plain wrong about the KID.)
So while I'm aware that, historically in high-level competitions, people try to win as White and draw as Black -- which really just means they take more risks as White, and play more defensibly as Black -- my own experience is that I'd rather be Black. Let White over-extend himself in the center; I will punish him for it from the flanks. :)
In fact, I have a pet theory that moving first is actually a disadvantage. As Onyx says, it telegraphs your intentions to your opponent; and this allows him decide how to respond -- such that Black usually ends up choosing the actual opening, and thereby steers the course of the game more than White. And even for White's best first moves, Black's best responses can frustrate, if not outright refute them. So if Black plays well, he _should_ at least draw, if not win. And White may soon come to regret his first move.
Another thing about the KID in particular is that, quite often, Black castles first. In fact, I find I often complete my development before White, who is busy with his pawns for some reason. So if I'm castled and my pieces are deployed, is that central pawn mass really an advantage? Does White really even have his extra tempo, anymore? . . . After all, time in chess isn't just the seconds on your clock _or_ moving first; it can be gained by strategically deploying, or lost by deploying in a sub-optimal way. So for example, when the game goes 1. d4 Nf6, White has spent his first move on a pawn, whereas Black has already moved a piece. Therefore -- arguably -- Black is ahead on time now, not White. Instead of a one-pawn advantage for White, it's a two-pawn advantage for Black (since a knight is worth 3). Or at least they're equal. (I guess it's also worth considering how d4 gives the dark-square bishop some scope.)
So anyway, it's certainly debatable. And therein lies all of chess: an eternal argument between White & Black, each one making his case as eloquently & forcefully as he can.
So while I'm aware that, historically in high-level competitions, people try to win as White and draw as Black -- which really just means they take more risks as White, and play more defensibly as Black -- my own experience is that I'd rather be Black. Let White over-extend himself in the center; I will punish him for it from the flanks. :)
In fact, I have a pet theory that moving first is actually a disadvantage. As Onyx says, it telegraphs your intentions to your opponent; and this allows him decide how to respond -- such that Black usually ends up choosing the actual opening, and thereby steers the course of the game more than White. And even for White's best first moves, Black's best responses can frustrate, if not outright refute them. So if Black plays well, he _should_ at least draw, if not win. And White may soon come to regret his first move.
Another thing about the KID in particular is that, quite often, Black castles first. In fact, I find I often complete my development before White, who is busy with his pawns for some reason. So if I'm castled and my pieces are deployed, is that central pawn mass really an advantage? Does White really even have his extra tempo, anymore? . . . After all, time in chess isn't just the seconds on your clock _or_ moving first; it can be gained by strategically deploying, or lost by deploying in a sub-optimal way. So for example, when the game goes 1. d4 Nf6, White has spent his first move on a pawn, whereas Black has already moved a piece. Therefore -- arguably -- Black is ahead on time now, not White. Instead of a one-pawn advantage for White, it's a two-pawn advantage for Black (since a knight is worth 3). Or at least they're equal. (I guess it's also worth considering how d4 gives the dark-square bishop some scope.)
So anyway, it's certainly debatable. And therein lies all of chess: an eternal argument between White & Black, each one making his case as eloquently & forcefully as he can.
