Glad you find this useful!
Have you played over the sample games on the first few pages?
GM Larry Evans' method of static analysis
Sort:
Criticism of writings[edit]
Larry Evans was a prolific author, with many who both liked and disliked his works.
Noted chess author and trainer International Master John L. Watson made the following observations on Evans's books and columns: "huge bias"; "long histories of ignoring and distorting evidence" and "Evans' absurd arguments".[20]
By contrast, chess author and International Master Anthony Saidy noted that Evans brought to his journalism a "taste for intriguing chess", his personal experience at "the summit of US chess", and "sharp opinions" regarding the politics of chess, which contributed to his "spicy, concise columns".[21]
Author and USCF National Master Bruce Pandolfini described Larry Evans's New Ideas in Chess as influential and a "first-rate chess book".[22]
Leading chess historian Edward Winter, however, has noted numerous factual errors in Evans' work as well as several examples of possible plagiarism.[23]
On page 175 of Evans' book, Modern Chess Brilliancies, he claims Lodewijk Prins adjourned a clearly lost position against Cuban master Quesada and was lucky enough when the latter died of a heart attack the "next day". Prins noted that he had actually resigned the position, as is proven by the tournament crosstables showing it as a loss for him, and that Quesada played three more games in the tournament before dying five days after the game against Prins. While Evans acknowledged the error, he defended it with "you must admit it makes a good story."[24]
It occurs to me that we should be careful of a possibly overly simplistic approach to static analysis ... especially wrt simplistic value judgements on things like space and force.
Jan 27, 2023
0
#105
Charlie8686 wrote:
Very well written and very informative. Thanks for the info!
Agreed, I skimmed through this yesterday and read more of it today, just now in fact, this gentleman has alot of Chess knowledge as we can see and seems very deserved of his 2300 + rating, I'm actually impressed and most comments on this site don't impress me, those comments were filled with Chess knowledge and wisdom!
Jan 27, 2023
0
#106
Chesslover0_0 wrote:
Charlie8686 wrote:
Very well written and very informative. Thanks for the info!
Agreed, I skimmed through this yesterday and read more of it today, just now in fact, this gentleman has alot of Chess knowledge as we can see and seems very deserved of his 2300 + rating, I'm actually impressed and most comments on this site don't impress me, those comments were filled with Chess knowledge and wisdom!
Praise is always nice to hear.
Have you seen my game?
Link > A Heroic Defense in the Sicilian Najdorf - Kids, don't try this at home!
blueemu wrote:
Chesslover0_0 wrote:
Charlie8686 wrote:
Very well written and very informative. Thanks for the info!
Agreed, I skimmed through this yesterday and read more of it today, just now in fact, this gentleman has alot of Chess knowledge as we can see and seems very deserved of his 2300 + rating, I'm actually impressed and most comments on this site don't impress me, those comments were filled with Chess knowledge and wisdom!
Praise is always nice to hear.
Have you seen my game?
Link > A Heroic Defense in the Sicilian Najdorf - Kids, don't try this at home!
And criticism is obviously good to ignore. However, it was full of simplistic half truths and many GMs have criticised Evans for dishonesty.
For instance, space is never an absolute positive. Even with more pieces on, it can make the job of defending the space too difficult, because it can give the opponent the room to operate *within* the space you have to defend. There was an obvious one too ... the idea that someone behind with force is always losing. When you separate time from force, that isn't true.
Jan 27, 2023
0
#109
Optimissed wrote:
Criticism of writings[edit]
Larry Evans was a prolific author, with many who both liked and disliked his works.
Noted chess author and trainer International Master John L. Watson made the following observations on Evans's books and columns: "huge bias"; "long histories of ignoring and distorting evidence" and "Evans' absurd arguments".[20]
By contrast, chess author and International Master Anthony Saidy noted that Evans brought to his journalism a "taste for intriguing chess", his personal experience at "the summit of US chess", and "sharp opinions" regarding the politics of chess, which contributed to his "spicy, concise columns".[21]
Author and USCF National Master Bruce Pandolfini described Larry Evans's New Ideas in Chess as influential and a "first-rate chess book".[22]
Leading chess historian Edward Winter, however, has noted numerous factual errors in Evans' work as well as several examples of possible plagiarism.[23]
On page 175 of Evans' book, Modern Chess Brilliancies, he claims Lodewijk Prins adjourned a clearly lost position against Cuban master Quesada and was lucky enough when the latter died of a heart attack the "next day". Prins noted that he had actually resigned the position, as is proven by the tournament crosstables showing it as a loss for him, and that Quesada played three more games in the tournament before dying five days after the game against Prins. While Evans acknowledged the error, he defended it with "you must admit it makes a good story."[24]
Every one of the people the Wiki quotes is rated hundreds of points below Evans. Every one.
Even if you were to prove that Evans was a cannibal and that he molested children, what does any of that have to do with his understanding of chess (an understanding that gained him both the US Championship title and the GM title)?
Ad hominem much?
Jan 27, 2023
0
#110
Optimissed wrote:
For instance, space is never an absolute positive. Even with more pieces on, it can make the job of defending the space too difficult, because it can give the opponent the room to operate *within* the space you have to defend.
If the opponent is operating within your own Pawns, then where is this "space advantage" of yours coming from? You don't seem to be counting space the same way I explained. Are you just looking at the extended Pawns? That isn't how space is counted.
There was an obvious one too ... the idea that someone behind with force is always losing. When you separate time from force, that isn't true.
Where did I (or Evans) make that claim? This sounds like a straw man that you've set up specifically to knock down and declare victory.
blueemu wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
For instance, space is never an absolute positive. Even with more pieces on, it can make the job of defending the space too difficult, because it can give the opponent the room to operate *within* the space you have to defend.
If the opponent is operating within your own Pawns, then where is this "space advantage" of yours coming from? You don't seem to be counting space the same way I explained. Are you just looking at the extended Pawns? That isn't how space is counted.
There was an obvious one too ... the idea that someone behind with force is always losing. When you separate time from force, that isn't true.
Where did I (or Evans) make that claim? This sounds like a straw man that you've set up specifically to knock down and declare victory.
That's a bit rich. You should know I absolutely always tell the truth. Read the description of "force"!
"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."
I think something was deleted because it said it twice. But it only needed to say it once and so it did. I think I side with Evans' critics. It's too dumbed down but I suppose those who realise that won't be relying on it and those who don't realise it will come to realise it.
Interesting and excellent article, thank you for sharing .
Jan 27, 2023
0
#114
Optimissed wrote:
"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."
Taken together with the immediately preceding sentence, the last sentence obviously implies "if down in material and left without counter-play".
I thought you had studied Philosophy? Are you seriously telling me that your professional training consists only of dissecting sentences, searching the lining of every syllable in hopes of finding some out-of-context quote that you can object to?
You must be very bored.
Jan 27, 2023
0
#115
blueemu wrote:
Chesslover0_0 wrote:
Charlie8686 wrote:
Very well written and very informative. Thanks for the info!
Agreed, I skimmed through this yesterday and read more of it today, just now in fact, this gentleman has alot of Chess knowledge as we can see and seems very deserved of his 2300 + rating, I'm actually impressed and most comments on this site don't impress me, those comments were filled with Chess knowledge and wisdom!
Praise is always nice to hear.
Have you seen my game?
Link > A Heroic Defense in the Sicilian Najdorf - Kids, don't try this at home!
I took a look at it, a very unconventional game, alot of those moves I simply didn't understand.
blueemu wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
"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."
Taken together with the immediately preceding sentence, the last sentence obviously implies "if down in material and left without counter-play".
I disagree with that interpretation because this advice is obviously intended for near-beginners who might automatically believe that down on material = losing.
I thought you had studied Philosophy? Are you seriously telling me that your professional training consists only of dissecting sentences, searching the lining of every syllable in hopes of finding some out-of-context quote that you can object to? You must be very bored.
This doesn't seem very philosophical to me. I'm sorry if you disagree with my criticism but Larry Evans does have a really bad press. A lot of GMs have felt the same way as I did about him.
I'm afraid I am bored. I've been working quite hard for several weeks .... all the way through Christmas, in fact. I need to tidy up and am putting it off. My wife has a client in the next room ... an African lady .... and I'm enjoying hearing them have such a good time in among the work. There's stuff scattered all over the floor of this room and I was tidying for three hours yesterday and now at least I can see the carpet. I probably shouldn't have commented but I'd forgotten you could be so touchy. I think it was only acknowledging the praise and not the criticism which set me off! 
Jan 27, 2023
0
#117
No doubt I am indeed excessively touchy, but I can't for the life of me see what the two ideas have in common:
1) Evans getting the details of a chess story completely wrong and publishing a fictional account rather than researching the facts.
2) Therefore Evans' work within his own field (chess theory) must be entirely worthless.
These two ideas just don't link up for me.
An analogy:
Bobby Fischer was a horrible human being. His anti-Semitic views in particular were morbid and repellant. Does this mean that his ideas on chess were worthless? His games not worth studying and emulating? His opening innovations should be discarded, out of distaste for his politics?
Jan 27, 2023
0
#118
CHIEFofLEMONS wrote:
Interesting concept. Can you give spaces evaluation numbers like pieces?
Not sure of your meaning.
The numbers (ie: the space-count, the time-count) are not that important. It's an understanding of the basic concepts that is important, along with the advice for each possible outcome (ahead in Time, behind in Time, ahead in Space, etc).
Naturally no general advice (and no set of general rules) will apply in 100% of cases. Chess would be a very easy game if all you needed was a list of rules to follow.
blueemu wrote:
No doubt I am indeed excessively touchy, but I can't for the life of me see what the two ideas have in common:
1) Evans getting the details of a chess story completely wrong and publishing a fictional account rather than researching the facts.
2) Therefore Evans' work within his own field (chess theory) must be entirely worthless.
These two ideas just don't link up for me.
An analogy:
Bobby Fischer was a horrible human being. His anti-Semitic views in particular were morbid and repellant. Does this mean that his ideas on chess were worthless? His games not worth studying and emulating? His opening innovations should be discarded, out of distaste for his politics?
Do you mind if I answer your comment? I'm sorry, I should have remembered you can be touchy and I also know you're basically alright but touchiness can lead to inventing things. Here, the invented thing was "therefore".
<<Therefore Evans' work within his own field (chess theory) must be entirely worthless.>>
Evans was well known for invention and even lying. However, that anecdote isn't the main reason for criticism of him: it's his lack of accuracy which annoyed other GMS.
Also "entirely worthless" is an invention. He was just a bit dodgy. There were some chess writers in the 70s and 80s who used to come in for similar criticism. Andy Soltis springs to mind. Probably helped many players but considered inaccurate and dodgy. There was another one too. Raymond Keene had his critics but not to the same extent. When a chess writer seems just to want to sell books ....
Jan 27, 2023
0
#120
Optimissed wrote:
Do you mind if I answer your comment? I'm sorry, I should have remembered you can be touchy and I also know you're basically alright but touchiness can lead to inventing things. Here, the invented thing was "therefore".
<<Therefore Evans' work within his own field (chess theory) must be entirely worthless.>>
Evans was well known for invention and even lying. However, that anecdote isn't the main reason for criticism of him: it's his lack of accuracy which annoyed other GMS.
Also "entirely worthless" is an invention. He was just a bit dodgy. There were some chess writers in the 70s and 80s who used to come in for similar criticism. Andy Soltis springs to mind. Probably helped many players but considered inaccurate and dodgy. There was another one too. Raymond Keene had his critics but not to the same extent. When a chess writer seems just to want to sell books ....
Guilty as charged... you never said "therefore". I just added that little flourish.
I can't take the "inaccuracy" criticisms of Evans very seriously, though. Note that all of the "slightly dodgy" writers you mentioned were from the 70s and 80s (and Evans wrote in the 50s to 60s, too).
The 80s was the last decade before Chess computers became a major factor. That means that Evans' critics had access to chess computers for tactics-and-blunder-checking, but Evans himself (nor Soltis, and perhaps Keene) did NOT. This is hardly a level playing field for determining a person's accuracy.
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.
These are great, I'm going to try and keep these in mind when I analyze my next game.