Evaluation / "Positional Calculation?"

I currently have an expert rating in the US Chess Federation, but it seems one of the most difficult things for me (and one of the things that most noticably distinguishes weaker players from stronger ones) is the ability to accurately evaluate positions where there appear to be forcing moves, but no immediate tactical consequences are forseeable.

Here are some examples from my games. Note that all of these games were played the time control of 60 minutes + 30 seconds/move

(Note: Sorry! Most of my comments appear before the move when they should appear after the move)

In the position after 12...f5, I looked over possible variations (like those displayed) involving 13. Qh3 and 13. Qh5 (as well as briefly considering others such as 13. exf6) for about ten minutes, but in the end I just had to pick the move that "looked best." 

 My engine "proved" to me after the game that Rd7 was better than Rd5, but it's still not clear to me how a human would come to that conclusion.

Many players prepare their openings deeply, study the endgame, practice their tactics, and learn the basics of positional and strategic chess, but this sort of "positional calculation" - to be able to look at two or three semi-forcing variations in a critical position and determine which move is best - seems quite hard to teach. From my experiences, this ability to evaluate positions accurately is what makes the difference between a 1900-2100 player and a 2200-2300 player.

So, for you stronger players - how do you recommend improving this skill in chess?

Any advice on the general topic or specific anaylsis/insight of the diagrams I posted is welcome. Thanks!

I hope the diagrams aren't too hard to understand since I typed the comments before the move rather than after the move.

Feedback is welcome :).

I don't really know but on the first game i think qh3 is the best since it clears out the  black knight off the g file when following up with h4 and the knight has to move to a passive square where it can not defend very much.

Yeah, that was my thinking in the game as well. But Qh5, inducing h6 at some point, was also tempting.

It's interesting to note that my engine ultimately believed Qg3! was the best move of them all. All three moves were pretty good for white, but it's situations like that for I feel I just have to play what "looks best" after calculating for 10 minutes, which is frustrating.

As for the second diagram, I would not trade rooks because it greatly diminishes white's attacking potential which is great when they have 3 pieces against 2.

The rook can more easily "clear" the way for your passer and support its way to queen. The minor pieces can be excellent supporters for the rook in that task but are somewhat weaker alone. Indeed, they are in my opinion much better in blockading opponent's passers.

There is also pure mathematics: R+B+N can attack a pawn triple times and at the same time create blockade which black king cannot break. In such case black will only have 2R for defence and a pawn falls down. It is much more difficult with only B+N to implement (the rook is great in cutting off opponent's king)

As for the last example: saying that a position is scary to play means you failed to do some pure (non-positional) calculations to validate your assessment. If you calmly calculated (like engines do) that white will have not much real threats you would choose c5 and let the scary-looking Ne4-d6 to follow.

Some Najdorf players (see especially the poisoned pawn line) face much more scarying threats against their king but still manage to choose best moves and not only survive the attack but eventually end up with material advantage. Maybe you need to calm down in similar situations and calculate more calmly?

That is a good point about R+B+N vs 2R positions. I'll have to keep that in mind.

If anyone has advice about practicing the ability to determine the best possibility in these critical positions, that would be great too!

There's an old rule of thumb in such positions as the 2nd diagram.  It's considered a small victory for the side with two rooks to trade one of their redundant rooks for the opponent's lone rook.

Anyway it's a very interesting question and part of what makes chess so much fun IMO.  You look at two different positions in calculation and you have to make a judgement... which is better?

I'm currently working through a book "Test your Positional Play" by Bellin and Ponzetto.  It's a lot of fun.  The meat of the book is 30 test positions.  You're told to look at the position for 10 minutes and develop a plan (like in your diagrams, I plan to advance my h pawn and weaken his king, I plan to push my c pawn, or to exchange a pair of rooks).

Then you read 3 suggested plans.  In these three different plans the authors argue for their idea in a convincing way.  Each plan gets a paragraph or two with a few variations... here's an idea for your 2nd diagram e.g. "I claim the most important element is my undeveloped queenside so I plan to develop those minors then push c5" or "I need to push c5 right away" or "My bishop is bad so I plan a5 followed by Ba6"

Then you have to choose.  One plan is bad (but you can be tricked by their convincing logic if you're not careful).  One is usually ok, but there's a problem with it (tactically or strategically) like where you lost your chance to play c5 and one is best.  In the solution section they carefully explain the wrong and correct choices and then show the rest of the game (usually between GMs) and you can see how it played out.

It's great because it mimics what often goes on in my head during a game... this looks reasonable... but so does that, so which is best?

"From my experiences, this ability to evaluate positions accurately is what makes the difference between a 1900-2100 player and a 2200-2300 player."

It's most likely one key difference between players, whatever their level (that and being able to calculate accurately).

It's a strange thing that it's often easy to see the right move 'after the fact'; after seeing what your engine claims is the best move, you often think, "Oh yeah, of course it is". Why is that, exactly? That we don't see 'the obvious move' until it's pointed out to us?

I think evaluation decides more games at the higher level. At lower levels, like below 2000, you are doing pretty well to be able to calculate a line and see if there are any immediate tactical problems in or at the end of a variation calculated. In short, don't blunder or miscalculate :)

At higher levels (because I'm starting to experience this as I transition to expert strength) it seems that going a bit beyond becomes more important -- for example instead of just calculating a 5 move line and accurately concluding "I end up with a rook and pawn for a bishop and knight," you need to evaluate that final position, look at possible plans, and see if your rook and pawn will be desirable in that position before deciding to go into the line.

Lets say I introduced myself as a GM and you showed me a game.  I could suggest any reasonable move and you'd probably have the same feeling "oh of course!  It seems so obvious now" ... but just like the engine's output after only a few seconds I could be fooling you.

Anyway... that's my answer.  The problem isn't that good moves seem obviously good, but that bad moves also seem obviously good

I read somewhere some titled player's opinion that the analysis skill is what decides games for players rated 1900 and below.  What decides games for higher rated players then?  He didn't say.  Preparation?  Ability like calculation?

Anyway, what you're saying makes sense to me... that analysis would divide players of all skill, especially those of the higher ranks.  The ability to recognize a position as good for you or not.

Dark Odan, indeed, there is a big distinction between appreciating the logic of an idea shown to you and actually coming up with the idea yourself. It's probably mostly patterns that draw us to certain ideas. We have this recognition of what a proper move in a certain type of position should look like, and that could lead to us subconsciously blocking out certain moves, without evaluating them good or bad but sort of pretending that they don't exist (although that point is debatable). Obviously, you can't appreciate the logic of a move that you aren't looking at!

I find sometimes when I am calculating I will automatically make recapture moves without even thinking or being aware that I'm doing it. It's not so much that I'm assuming not recapturing is bad-- it's more like I'm not even evaluating the recapture at all but just including it like a zombie! Sometimes the easy part is evaluating a move, and the hard part simply considering the move!

Post #16: Of course. It's just that many more blunders are made sub 2000... so if you simply mis-evaluate a position, chances are a few moves later when the position gets sharp, he'll drop a pawn or something . But if you mis-evaluate a position you're going into against a GM, you'll just be endlessly tortured with no way out :)

Not to say evaluation isn't important at all levels -- just that I think there is more prority attatched to it at higher levels.

"but just like the engine's output after only a few seconds I could be fooling you."

Haha, true. I must admit when I'm assessing the position with help of an engine, I try to rationalize why it thinks one side is better. I'll be like yeah, those white central pawns are a big deal, and then five seconds later it changes to saying black is slightly better... "oh, never mind, they're not!" rofl

Haha, yeah.  I like to open the multi line mode and when I see:

Choice1: +0.19
Choice2: +0.11
Choice3: +0.05

I just read it as "I have no idea"

There are plenty of positions that look good to me and I'd "like to play" but in reality I have thrown away my advantage or given my opponent counter play unnecessarily.  It can be hard to judge.

In a recent game I created structural weakness on the queenside and my plan was to attack his pawns.  In particular his isolated rook pawn on my half open file.  Should I double rooks?  I'll eventually win the pawn but then my rooks are uncoordinated afterwards.  Meanwhile he's preparing to dominate the open e file and have some center/knigside action.  Do I wait to pressure his pawn?  My advantage my disappear if I wait... or I may allow too much counter play if I don't prepare properly.

Should I ignore it for now and try to exploit it in an endgame?  Or will the reduced material give him a fortress?  etc.

So visually I like my chances... but I don't know at what moment I may throw them away :p