GM Larry Evans' method of static analysis

In this thread, blueemu will talk about  GM Larry Evans' method of static analysis. Sounds like an interesting topic, but also looks suspicious, how can you trust your moves on statistics?!

Lol! I found blueemu's comments about that on another thread, maybe I should repost them to save blueemu time, and so we can further advance in the class?

So basically what I get from those comments is that you count space and force and then depending on a magical number you determine kind of what you have to do according to Evan's guidelines? 

@blueemu should show us a "pretty girl" where he used that way of analyzing!

Correct.

According to GM Evans, there are two modes of analysis:

There's the Dynamic Analysis... the "I-go-here, he-goes-there" sort of analysis that everyone is familiar with. You do that while YOUR clock is running (because you know the exact position... it's your move).

Then there's the Static Analysis... counting Space, Time and Force, and assessing Pawn Structure. You can do that while EITHER player's clock is running, because the results won't change much in a single half-move. This gives you something productive to do with your OPPONENT'S time.

Let's tackle Space / Time / Force / Pawn Structure in reverse order.

I'll make a separate post for each. (but first I'll nip out into the icy Canadian winds, for a smoke).

hi

 Pawn Structure:

We are all familiar with weak Pawns. Isolated Pawns (Isolani, in Kmoch's terminology), doubled Pawns (Twins), backward Pawns (Stragglers), weak color complexes, and so on. One point that ought to be stressed is that it is really the SQUARES that are weak or strong... a weak Pawn is just a Pawn that is sitting on a weak square. This becomes clear if the Pawn gets exchanged off (or lost)... the square itself remains weak, even if the Pawn is gone.

Doubled Pawns deserve a bit more attention: their weakness manifests itself in two ways... in the endgame, with most of the wood traded off, they are vulnerable to capture. In the middle game, the main weakness of doubled Pawns is that their collective mobility is reduced: the entire constellation of Pawns has less mobility than it would if the Pawns were still single-file.

Kmoch goes into this in more detail, examining concepts like front-span, rear-span, lee and luff... but we've covered the main points. Buy "Pawn Power" for more detail on Pawn Structure.

Force:

Again, a familiar concept. The usual way to assess Force is the old Pawn = 1, Knight or Bishop = 3, Rook = 5, Queen = 9 and King = game over.

But there are other, more complex ways to count force. In open positions with unbalanced Pawn formations (eg: 3 Pawns vs 2 on one flank and 3 vs 4 on the other), most players feel that a Bishop is worth more than a Knight. In blocked positions, the reverse is true. So depending on the Pawn formation, we could add or subtract one-quarter or one-half point to the Bishop or Knight when evaluating material.

The King has a fighting value of about four points in the endgame, although I recommend that you don't try to exchange it for anything.

Similarly, almost everyone would agree that a (White) Pawn on e4 is worth more than a (White) Pawn on a3. So you could count center Pawns as worth one-and-one-quarter points, and a Rook's Pawn as worth only three-quarters of a point. There's room for judgement, even in a mechanical count of material.

There are a few other peculiarities of counting material... such as the well known fact that a Queen usually works better in combination with a Knight than with a Bishop; they interfere with each other less.

Time:

Again, there are different ways to count Time, and you can just settle on one that works for you.

The method I use is to ignore any Pawns or Pieces that have been exchanged off... only the pieces still on the board contribute to your Time count.

NOTE that this changes the way you should look at exchange of material! For instance, in the Open Sicilian, after 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 White's d-Pawn moved once and disappeared, while Black's c-Pawn moved twice before being captured. It isn't just a Pawn-for-Pawn trade... White traded a center Pawn plus one move for a flank Pawn plus two moves. White gave up a bit of material (about a quarter of a point) in return for a tempo; and this can be verified by counting the moves actually present on the board: one move for White's e-Pawn plus two moves for his Knight (three moves in total) vs one move for Black's d-Pawn plus it's Black's turn to move (two moves in total). Black has gained in force (he has two center Pawns left, while White has only one plus a flank Pawn) but he has lost a tempo.

Again, there is plenty of room for judgement in making your Time count... if your Queen is sitting on a square that requires two moves to reach (on f2, for example) but is no better placed than it would be on e2, you can count that as one move instead of two. Similarly, if your Rook is still on h1 but you've opened the h-file and the Rook is involved in the action, you can count it as developed (and count that as a move) even though it hasn't budged from its original square.

Space:

This is the most complex of the basic elements. As usual, there are different ways to count Space, and I like to use two different methods and contrast them, because the difference between the two counts can also provide information.

Method one:

Ignore your first three ranks, since they are well covered in the starting position. Beginning at the fourth rank, count all the squares that your pieces attack... UNLESS you have a friendly Pawn on that square. You don't count squares occupied by your own Pawns, because you can't make any use of those squares... you aren't allowed to capture your own pieces.

Let's use the position mentioned above (after 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4) as an example:

White has a Space-count of 13, Black has a Space-count of 6.

NOTE that it doesn't usually make much difference if you miscount by one or two squares. We are looking for general trends, not for exact numbers to plug into an algorithm. The general trend in this position is that White has a considerable edge in Space, right out of the opening.

Method two:

The same as method one, except that you count each square a number of times equal to the number of times you could capture on that square. One consequence of this is that blocked Bishops and doubled Rooks still exert part of their power past the obstruction... for example, if you have a Pawn on e4 and a Bishop fianchettoed on g2, you could capture twice on d5 (first with the Pawn, then with the Bishop) so you would count that square twice even though the Bishop is blocked by the Pawn.

These two counting methods will typically give you different results... sometimes a small difference, but sometimes a large one. The reason to use BOTH methods is that they return different information.

This can be illustrated by subtracting the two counts. The difference between them indicates how focused or diffused your pressure is... are your pieces focused toward a few critical squares, or is your pressure spread across the front fairly evenly? The difference between the two counts can be referred-to as your Coordination.

Next: How to interpret this Space / Time / Force information. What does it tell you?

Very well written and very informative. Thanks for the info!

OK, now we get down to the nitty-gritty: What do these numbers mean? How are they useful in a real game?

Well... the numbers themselves aren't important. It's the concepts that are important. In fact, you should only have to do those formal counts on a few occasion, and after that you can just LOOK at a position and say to yourself "Hmmm... I've got a big Space advantage, but my opponent has two center Pawns against one, and I've lost a bit of Time".

Here's how you interpret the results of the Static Analysis:

Ahead in Force: You should have a winning endgame, if you can reach it. Trade off material, or at least operate with THREATS of exchanging material, in order to force additional concessions from your opponent. If you are far enough ahead (eg: a Rook up) you can skip the endgame and head straight for mate.

Behind in Force: The other side of the coin. Avoid unnecessary exchanges. Try to play for an advantage in Time (development) since Time is the easiest advantage to convert into a winning attack. If necessary, sacrifice additional material for counter-play... why not? You're losing anyway.

Ahead in Time: Time is the most dangerous element, the easiest one to convert into an attack. Almost all gambits involve sacrificing Force to gain Time. Develop rapidly and look for combinations. Most combinations are based on a Time advantage.

Behind in Time: Be careful! Watch the WHOLE board. Calculate... and watch out for enemy combinations and threats. Try to exchange off the most threatening enemy pieces, or at least try to gain back some Time by threatening exchanges. Operate with economy of weakness... try not to defend by pushing Pawns unless the other options lead to disaster.

Ahead in Space: Try to convert your Space advantage into a Time advantage, by using alternating threats against widely separated parts of the board. Use your superior lines of communication to run the opponent ragged. Since he has less room to maneuver, his defensive maneuvers should be less efficient than your attacking maneuvers, and sooner or later you will be attacking over HERE while his defensive pieces are still scrambling around over THERE. Remember: Space advantage => alternation => Time advantage => combination.

Behind in Space: Play carefully, using the principle of economy of weakness. Trade off some pieces if possible... three pieces rattling around in a cramped position are much less constricted than seven pieces stuffed into the same cramped position. If exchanges are impractical (eg: if you are in a must-win tournament situation and want to keep the game dynamic) then try to slowly recapture the lost space, only advancing Pawns when they are well-supported by pieces. You are trying to gradually break out... don't let your opponent suddenly break in!

Tomorrow I'll post a game or two illustrating these ideas.

Whoa, these is really insightful! Thx!

Geez! Thanks blueemu for the info, I would call you grandpa but I think that is too cringy

Botvinnik said something about "use the opponent's clock for ideas and your clock for exact calculation"

All of your explanations, seem clear, but Im confused about the tempo advantage, how the heck am I supposed to know that on move 20?

Is this the sort of thing that GM Evans explained in his book, New Ideas in Chess?

Yes.

You only count the moves that are still visible on the board, using the shortest routes. You can (and should) also use judgement... a move that has no bearing on the position (or one that has a detrimental effect) doesn't need to be counted.

Example:

This position is an old main-line from the Ruy Lopez. When counting moves, you would count the White Bishop on c2 as having made two moves (B(f1)-d3-c2) despite the fact that it has really made four (B(f1)-b5-a4-b3-c2). Only two of those four moves are visible. The same remark applies to the Black Knight on c6... you would count that as one move, not three. Use the shortest routes.

But as I said earlier, the exact numbers aren't important. Only the basic ideas are important. and once you get used to the ideas, I wouldn't even bother doing the count... just glance at the position and say to yourself "I'm up in time and space, but down a bit in material".

Now an illustrative game.

Unfortunately for BronsteinPawn, it is a game that he's likely seen before... but it's an excellent illustration of the Space / Time / Force concepts.

First a few remarks on the context. This game was played in the final round of an OTB tournament, decades ago. Before the start of the final round, I was in clear second place; half-a-point behind the leader and half-a-point ahead of a huge log-jam of players... there were at least seven other players within half a point of me. I was lucky enough to get paired against the front-runner, so if I won this game I would finish in clear first place... nobody could catch me. If I lost I would finish out of the prizes entirely (at least three or four of those players within half a point of me should win their own games), while a draw would mean a five-or-six-way tie for second place. Obviously, this was a must-win situation... a draw was nearly worthless to me.

I was playing Black.

Interesting!