For starters you have to be honest in your assessment. Black has far more space? Do you really think that is true? Black has no pawn breaks, no good squares for his pieces, no targets and white is going to play f3 and break down blacks pawn chain. To top it all off black has doubled pawns.
Struggling to evaluate simple positions!
Sort:
I'm really frustrated because I feel like I'm doing everything right and (think) my positions are great but when I analyse later with stockfish, I see my position was NEVER better in the first place. Its annoying because if I can't even tell the difference between a good position and bad one after over a year of playing, how can I possibly improve? Even seemingly simple positions I seem to evaluate wrongly and I don't know why.
Take the following position, for example:
To me, it seems like black SHOULD be better slightly. Black's bishop is eyeing a lot of squares. Black has far more space with their pawns that are all defended in a chain. Black has an open file for their rook.
White, on the other hand seems to be a little "stuck" with their bishop as it doesn't have many squares and has far LESS space on the board. The only advantage is maybe that white is castled and (perhaps) black's doubled pawns are bad?
Regardless, it seems like black is better or at least equal, so why is white +1 here? What am I missing when evaluating simple positions?