Addendum
Diagram below. According to SF it's equal. According to me, everything being equal, white has a pawn in the center, and black has none. It appears to me that white is slightly better. What am I missing? Maybe I'm actually right when it comes to the center, but black has compensation for it?
@1
++ 2 and 3 are basically the same.
you undervalue 1. The rating thing is a non-argument, you could say the same about 2 & 3
The bishop's pair compensates the pawn structure. Example:
tygxc Fair enough, I'll take it. But my center evaluation? Is that correct? Is white's pawn in the center (vs 0 of black) "better", as it's a help to dominate the center?
But my center evaluation? Is that correct? Is white's pawn in the center (vs 0 of black) "better", as it's a help to dominate the center?
Oh yes! And be careful not to rely too heavily on engine evaluations. They often end up with everything being equal. But that's not the case in human chess. There, the pawn on e4 can be of decisive importance.
And so will a bishop pair sometimes!
I can understand that black is doing fine in both situations. The problem with space is that it's most useful when there are a lot of pieces on the board. In both cases a few trades have already happened so space is less relevant.
But then the question comes to ease of play. Sometimes a position is equal, but one side has to make 9 only moves in a row. That's practically an extremely dangerous position for the side that has to make the only moves. I think at lower ratings ease of playing is very valuable. In both cases white has a reasonably nice position with a good center and some good pieces. That's easier than black's position. I would expect white to do a bit better in both positions (if he can stop Nc4 in the 2nd position).
I agree that the evaluation of a position is irrelevant to ratings, but it's not everything there is to a position. The lower rated you are, the more mistakes you make and the more valuable it'll be to have an easier position where you are less likely to make that mistake. Note that on every level, including Carlsen's level, ease of position and risks of making a mistake is an extremely important aspect of choosing your openings.
Bishop pair matters ! The queens pretty much need to get traded down here so it’s a guaranteed endgame with black having the bishop pair. Black has a double pawn, but that is not really a hindrance having the bishop pair. An isolated e pawn, possibly a short chain black trades off queens doesn’t really matter that much when the queens and 2 minors are off the board. The objective here would be to get a material advantage and I would say black should have an easier time doing that.
black can easily castle as well after the trade and doesn’t really have to worry about his king for awhile since white just has 2 knights.
One thing that I have noticed that has not been noted on is that op's idea of central control is based solely on pawns in the center when black is actually fighting for the center, and has not given it up (this is based on the first post position). Black is using their pieces to fight for the center also, and not allow the use of center by white with them.
@8
In the first position white controls e4 and d4, while e5 and d5 are contested.
In the second position white controls e4 and d4, black controls e5, while d5 is contested.
However all of that is secundary.
The main issue is black has the bishop's pair and white has the better pawn structure.
Completely disagree that black is fighting for the center in both cases. The 2nd actually seems to me to be a very stable center for white. Clear space advantage there. I don't think the bishop pair matters a lot at lower levels. When I myself can't consistently win endgames with the bishop pair a player much worse than me will struggle too. In both these position the bishop pair functions to compensate black for the lack of space and the less control over the center, it's not enough to be better.
And I think looking at pawns is a smart way to look at the center. In most cases pawns do decide who controls the center. And it's hard to pressure the center enough anyway to matter much at lower levels.
The bishop's pair is powerful.
Some grandmasters even believe the bishop's pair compensates a full pawn.
The bishop's pair is powerful.
Some grandmasters even believe the bishop's pair compensates a full pawn.
So what? This is not a game between grandmasters. You need to be very good to play with the bishop pair well. That's not happening at lower levels.
And I think looking at pawns is a smart way to look at the center. In most cases pawns do decide who controls the center. And it's hard to pressure the center enough anyway to matter much at lower levels.
That's what I'm actively learning/practicing. Since I figured out that the (counter)attack can be seen as a defense, exploring how to fight for the center makes so much more sense now.
I was analyzing a game between two lower rated players. I am interested in evaluating mainly the center. I'm also only interested in positional analysis relevant for lower rated players like me.
For the final position below, my simple analysis would be that
To me white should be slightly "better" if anything, but Stockfish says black is better by a tiny amount.
Notice that my interest is center play/domination. Would an experienced player like to help me out how to look at this in a proper way, in case I didn't?