Evaluating a position

Hey all,

I have started to play chess pretty frequently but am noticing some things I would like to address.  I am getting better at finding tactics, but positionally I have a hard time evaluating positions.  Apart from a strong pawn center and developed pieces, what makes a position 'winnable'?  I have been studying some openings and there is a standard notation to use a 'white has clear atvantage'/'white has small atvantage' etc in books.  As much as I try I cannot find out why white/black has an atvantage.  It looks like a chess game in action to me!

 

Thanks for any advice,

 

John 

erm not being an expert so take my comments with a pinch of salt, and im sceptical about how far anyone apart from grandmasters can evauluate a position as being "winning" or not - the thing is in chess things can change so quickly, but i'd guess it would be things like pawn structure etc, or pieces that aren't able (yet!) to play an active role in the game.

so something like this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

umm yeah, feel free to tell me that white actually has an advantage here, but that's what i guess they're trying to illustrate

Kasparov believes chess is a game of three factors:

"Material",

"Time" (initiative, lead in development etc.)

and "Quality" (Jonathan Rowson breaks Quality into "Safety", "Structure" and "Scope"(piece placement/activity)).

Rowson also adds a fourth factor in "Ticking" or clock time

A deficiency in one area can be compensated by a plus in another. For example, it doesn't matter if you're down two rooks, a queen and a couple of pawns (material) if you have the "time" to force mate (made possible by a lack of king safety which is presumably what all that material was traded for  ) on your next move

 The problem is if we try to understand all of these factors at once it quickly becomes overwhelming. So break it down, start by learning stuff like why a lead in development is good, the pluses and minuses of a space advantage, when the "quality" of a piece is good etc.

 

But what do I know? I'm just a lowly 1600 player

Thanks.  Do you know if Kasparov wrote any great books on chess?  I haven't heard of any.

-John

His "My Great Predecessors" series are classics but probably not what you need now (nor what I need right now, I only own the set because I know I will need them sometime).

His "Modern Chess" series are probably more instructive in that they chronicle his own games but I don't own them so I don't know.

Kasparov's best book in my opinion is "The Test of Time" where he annotates games from his career before his 1st World Championship match (it's probably hard to find though)

The Material, Time, Quality theory I think was introduced in the "Garry Kasparov - My Story" set of videos, which can be found on Youtube. Also, Jonathan Rowson's book "Chess for Zebras" deals with it and many of the psychological issues that keep adult players from improving

 However I recommend you start with Dan Heismans novice nook articles ( http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archives.htm#Novice Nook ) or his ICC videos. Heisman has his own system for evaluating a position (material, space, king safety and development if I recall correctly) but at the end of the day it's all the same

Thanks for the reply.  Though this is a little off-topic, I have another question.  I have recently fallen in love with chess and bought probably 10 books.  However, none of them really have what I am looking for--except for maybe The Amateur's Mind, which is great.  However most of them are not very good at explaining things, rather having long variations.  I don't mind the complexity, but the variations might be 10 moves long without a single comment. Do you know of a book, perhaps on aggressive, solid opening gambits, that has most moves commented and explained? Another problem is that the lines NOT mentioned seem to cause me a lot of trouble.  I know this is because I do not know how to punish them, but I can't find a book that explains that. Thanks, John   Do you know

Interesting topic. This is exactly what I am learning to do. I'll be happy to share what I am learning with you.

First, evaluating a position requires discipline and good time management. Don't move too quickly. Force yourself to think about the imbalances in a position before you make a final decision. Use good time management, of course. Basically, pay attention to detail.

That being said, I have been reading a book by IM Jeremy Silman called The Complete Book of Chess Strategy Grandmaster Techniques From A To Z.

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Book-Chess-Strategy-Grandmaster/dp/1890085014/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311709290&sr=1-1

On page 181 it gives the list of imbalances we are supposed to consider before each move. I will write them below and illustrate what I have learned that the advantages mean.

1. Material - The player with the most pieces usually has a decisive advantage with correct play. This isn't always the case however. This is generally the sole advantage that beginners play to achieve. However, really good moves come from learning to break out of the material advantage only mindset and weigh the other advantages in the decision. I am learning to do this. I am starting to see how stronger players choose moves based on these other factors.

2. Space - The player with the most space has the ability to make more moves and thus execute more plans. Also, the player with the most space can more easily see the limited options of his opponent and thus choose which move his opponent will make so the one with more space can play to eliminate enemy counter play oppourtunities even further. This will usually lead to a decisive assault on the king, pawn promotion, or a decisive exchange that results in decisive material advantage. This is supposedly the favorite advantage of the GM's.

3. Pawn Structure - Pawn structure dictates how the end game will be played. If you have a better pawn structure than your opponent you have a huge end game advantage. We are supposed to make every pawn move with the end game in mind, or at least considered and weighed before we make the decision. Pawn moves can never be taken back, so pawns shouldn't be moved lightly.

4. Superior minor pieces - If you have a knight in a closed game and your opponent has a bishop who's movement is limited by it's pawns then you have a superior minor piece. This is really like having a material advantage and you should play to make sure your opponent can't free their pieces and your pieces can't be restricted. That is just one example of a superior minor piece. For instance in an open game a bishop is better than a knight. When dealing with two bishops a good one is a bishop that isn't restricted by it's own pawns. In the middle game you want your pawns on the same color as your opponents bishop and in the end game you want your pawns on the opposite color from the opponents bishop. Also in an end game with two pawn islands bishops are better. With one pawn island knights are better...etc

5. Lead in development - You have more pieces out and ready to wreak havoc in coordinated assault than your opponent. This will lead to the initiative and dictate how the game is to be played and where. Your greater development can also lead to an advantage in space and restrict enamy movement. You aren't supposed to move a piece twice in the opening unless you must and you are supposed to develop your pieces around an active plan that benefits you based on the imbalances and makes problems for your opponent. So, each move needs a purpose and all moves should be coordinated to achieve an overall goal. Mobilize your whole army faster than your opponent to get the drop on him.

6. Initiative - You are in control of the game. You are forcing moves and your opponent must respond to what you do or he will be in terrible shape. This is an especially strong advantage if you are forcing king moves by check using tactics. You can be down huge in material and if you have a foced mate in 5 you have all of the advantages in the world and can't lose. So, what is required for that is the right pieces in the right places and the initiative.

So, the idea is that you can limit the candidate moves to only a few moves that actually make sense by considering these imbalances and how you can improve your position based on them.

As a disclaimer, I am just learning these things. I understand what IM Silman is teaching and am happy to share it with you. What I am not good at right now is the discipline to actually put this into practice and I haven't yet learned the give and take of it all. I am undisciplined and I many times make moves in a lazy fashion and smack myself later when horrible things happen that could have been avoided if I had just taken the time to consider the postion before I moved with my single minded purpose ignoring the realities of the position.

Higher players know that there is some give and take with every move and if they seize one type of advantage they concede another type to their opponent in many situations, so the trick seems to be determining which advantage to pursue given a choice between multiple advantages. In other words - If offered material I have a hard time not taking it. But in analysis many times it turns out that taking that material loses the initiative or wreaks pawn structure or loses the oppourtunity to gain space or gives space to the opponent. Yea, I'm up a knight or a pawn but the opponent is up in space and initiative now that I took that piece....etc. So I need to learn to consider these advantages and learn to choose which advantage is best in any given situation. This is where watching games from higher rated players comes in handy. Not only masters, but those in the 18 and 1900's. They are at the point that these things are becoming second nature to them and their plans are sound but still very understandable, they just make better decisions than people at my level (I'm starting to move into the 1400s from class D to class C It's a lot different). I need to learn how to make those better decisions as well so I can move beyond class C.

Good luck. I hope you find as much useful information in that book as I have. I'll figure out how to put it all to good use soon. If I remember this thread at that time, I'll explain how to best use these principles.

So we have the tools now. We just need to practice with them.

 

PS: Regarding your question about annotated openings, try this outstanding website. This guy has done a very good job building this awesome free resource: http://www.thechesswebsite.com/

Also, I have this book. It's really good:

http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Chess-Openings-MCO-14-Library/dp/0812930843/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311715200&sr=1-2

Remember though, openings just get you in a position to really play. They don't win the game for you, unless of course your opponent is bad at the opening and falls for a trap or something like that. Always play thinking your opponent will play as good as possible. Never count on blunders to win games.

Any higher rated players want to add anything or correct anythinng I said?

@1

"I have a hard time evaluating positions." ++ Former USSR champion and second of Kasparov Iossif Dorfman cites in The Method in Chess:

1. King safety
2. Material
3. Situation after queen exchange
4. Pawn structure

"Apart from a strong pawn center"
++ That is not enough to win. 1 e4 d6 2 d4 is a strong pawn center, but not winnable

"developed pieces" ++ That is not enough to win. Only a huge lead in development of 3 tempi is enough to win. Usually the other side can defend and catch up in development.

"what makes a position 'winnable'?"
++ Either the opportunity to attack and mate the king, or the possibility to queen a pawn.

"white has clear atvantage" ++ So black made a mistake.

"white has small atvantage" ++ Is most common, but means nothing at all.
White is up 1 tempo in the initial position, that is a small advantage not enough to win.

"As much as I try I cannot find out why white/black has an atvantage."
++ Apply the 4 Dorfman criteria above.