user16626: I have played over a thousand blitz games at chess.com and here are the results:

I failed to notice any obvious difference between white and black. In other word, I do not see the the first-mover advantage in my game history at all. 

What are the possible reasons that the the first-mover advantage is not reflected in my game history?
If playing white does not give me an advantage, should I play the Saragossa opening and play as if I am playing black (Slav with one extra tempo, Caro-Kann with one extra tempo, etc.) when I am actually playing white?


user18809: Maths64's answer is fine. I would like to add: "Don't change your opening repertoire based on some silly irrelevant statistics! Play what feels more comfortable with you"
It could be the case that you faced stronger players more often as White. It could also be the case that you made some random mistakes more often as White due to pure chance (or maybe because you had one more attempt to do them!)
I would therefore be careful about taking conclusions from statistics. If you want to know where you are making mistakes, take a handful of your games and analyze them

user13433: I thought you'd be playing something quiet like the London System. It explains perfectly well why your win rates with Black and White match.
Not because the London is not "sound and solid". It is. But too solid.
Solid is fine as Black when the main aim is to equalize White's first-move advantage.
However, if you are playing White yourself, you can strive for a little more, namely maintaining that slight advantage. But this is not something that the London is known for. You basically play the same way as if you were Black. Thus, you cannot really expect much different results, can you?
In short, you don't experience the first-move advantage because you play openings that don't try very hard to maintain it. 
From this it does not follow that the advantage does not exist - it just "happens" in other openings (and since these are more popular, they have a bigger influence on the average).
It also doesn't mean that you should stop playing the London. After all, it's not worse than your Black openings and they are fine, too.

user16771: The advantage White gets in a game is so small that it becomes completely irrelevant at low levels. 
What is the point of having such edge on your opponent if you at least are going to make an inaccuracy in the opening or middlegame? 
Furthermore, in blitz games that small advantage is probably negligible since a greater deal of mistakes are made.
My online rating in lichess is today close to 1700 and I see this in my games all the time. I do OK until a certain move (or later on) but due to something I cannot understand, I lose that +1 advantage I had accomplished before.
All in all, I do not think you should expect to have a greater percentage of wins as White unless you are above 2000 because below that, mistakes make the players constantly lose the upper hand they managed to acquire.
At higher levels, masters are more likely to capitalize on small advantages and turn the game into a win.

16626: <p>I have played over a thousand blitz games at chess.com and here are the results:</p>

<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/c54vh.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/c54vh.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>I failed to notice any obvious difference between white and black. In other word, I do not see the the first-mover advantage in my game history at all. </p>

<ol>
<li>What are the possible reasons that the the first-mover advantage is not reflected in my game history?</li>
<li>If playing white does not give me an advantage, should I play the <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/24336/if-1-e4-c6-is-considered-as-a-sound-defense-for-black-why-is-1-c3-so-rare">Saragossa opening</a> and play as if I am playing black (Slav with one extra tempo, Caro-Kann with one extra tempo, etc.) when I am actually playing white?</li>
</ol>
 18809: <p>Maths64's answer is fine. I would like to add: "Don't change your opening repertoire based on some silly irrelevant statistics! Play what feels more comfortable with you"</p>

<p>It could be the case that you faced stronger players more often as White. It could also be the case that you made some random mistakes more often as White due to pure chance (or maybe because you had one more attempt to do them!)</p>

<p>I would therefore be careful about taking conclusions from statistics. If you want to know where you are making mistakes, take a handful of your games and analyze them</p>
 13433: <p>I thought you'd be playing something quiet like the London System. It explains perfectly well why your win rates with Black and White match.</p>

<p>Not because the London is not "sound and solid". It is. But <em>too</em> solid.</p>

<p>Solid is fine as Black when the main aim is to equalize White's first-move advantage.</p>

<p>However, if you are playing White yourself, you can strive for a little more, namely maintaining that slight advantage. But this is not something that the London is known for. You basically play the same way as if you were Black. Thus, you cannot really expect much different results, can you?</p>

<p>In short, <strong>you don't experience the first-move advantage because you play openings that don't try very hard to maintain it</strong>. </p>

<p>From this it does <em>not</em> follow that the advantage does not exist - it just "happens" in other openings (and since these are more popular, they have a bigger influence on the average).</p>

<p>It also doesn't mean that you should stop playing the London. After all, it's not <em>worse</em> than your Black openings and they are fine, too.</p>
 16771: <p>The advantage White gets in a game is so small that it becomes completely irrelevant at low levels. 
What is the point of having such edge on your opponent if you at least are going to make an inaccuracy in the opening or middlegame? 
Furthermore, in blitz games that small advantage is probably negligible since a greater deal of mistakes are made.</p>

<p>My online rating in lichess is today close to 1700 and I see this in my games all the time. I do OK until a certain move (or later on) but due to something I cannot understand, I lose that +1 advantage I had accomplished before.</p>

<p>All in all, I do not think you should expect to have a greater percentage of wins as White unless you are above 2000 because below that, mistakes make the players constantly lose the upper hand they managed to acquire.
At higher levels, masters are more likely to capitalize on small advantages and turn the game into a win.</p>
