How to Analyse a Position

Hi guys,

Since I've finished reading the classic "Grandmaster Achievement" by Polugaevsky (the original title was "Grandmaster Preparation") one of my favourite pastimes has been analysing opening and early middlegame positions in search for new plans, I greatly enjoy the search for the subtleties of a position and this has greatly helped me to improve as a chessplayer (I am now closing in on a 2000 FIDE rating).

I would therefore like to ask you this question: how do you go about analysing a position? my method until now has been the following.

1. I look at the position for half a minute without thinking about any move in particular, just to get a rough idea of what's going on
2. I use the method illustrated in Aagard's "GM Preparation: Positional Play", which is to look for the worst placed piece/pieces, to individuate the weaknesses (only the ones which can be succesfully attacked, of course) and to look at the main ideas for both sides
3. As Tisdall recommends in his book "Improve your Chess Now" I start to calculate the most obvious move to get an idea for the resources both sides have. These often come about in different variations and it's worth to take a mental note of them. I have noticed that SGMs (especially Kramnik) in their post mortes often say something like "If I do this he always has that", meaning that they use a form of this method as well.
4. I conclude my analysis, having found the possible plans for both sides, the best plans for both sides, the resources both sides have, and if any of the sides is justified in playing for the win (I think this is more important than determining who's better)

A book that has greatly helped me in analysing a position better is the recent "Chess Structures: a GM guide" by Mauricio Flores Rios.

Thanks for your suggestions and for your advice.

Kind Regards,

Carlo aka FischerChips

P.S. Yes, my handle is a wordplay on the famous Londoner plate Fisch 'n' Chips, as 'n' sounds a bit like "er"; and yes, I've just done the lewdest thing in the world, which is to explain a joke  I apologise.

I don't believe I've seen a very comprehensive list in any book of things to check, but if I had time to get more serious I would make such a list and follow it diligently, on most moves. At the very least it would include the following attributes:

Who has the initiative, if anyone?

Are the pieces matched or mismatched? (E.g., B+N vs. R+P is mismatched, N+B vs N+B is matched.)

Is anyone in or close to Zugzwang?

Do there exist mating positions in certain lines of analysis?

Did the last move violate any general principle? (E.g., knight on the rim, early queen sortie, etc.) If so, figure out how to exploit it.

Do there exist any poisoned pawns (especially b-pawns), and/or is one player attacking one, or might be attempted to attack one? (If so, leave it unprotected as bait.)

Is the position dynamic/tactical, versus static/positional?

MINOR PIECES

Does either side have a bishop pair, and if so, who, and do both sides have a bishop pair?

PAWN STRUCTURE

Who has pawn majorities, if anyone, and on which side of the board?

Where are the passed pawns, if anywhere?

Where are weak (isolated, doubled, backward) pawns, if anywhere, and can those be exploited?

Is the position locked, which implies knights are more valuable?

Can a passed pawn be advanced? (This is often the winning move.)

SPACE

Who has more space?

Can a piece (especially a queen) be placed in a centralized, dominating position?

MATERIAL

Who is ahead in material?

SQUARES

Where are the weak squares and the strong squares?

Are there any squares that can be used as an outpost, and if so, where, and who has them?

LINES

Where are the open files, if any?

Does one side control a file, and if so, who, and which file?

DEVELOPMENT

How many pieces ahead/behind are the players in development, compared to each other?

FOR OPENINGS

Did the last move deviate from standard book moves? (If so, there's a good chance it's a mistake for some reason.)

Can the position transpose into a more favorable/unfavorable opening, or one we know better than our opponent?

FOR ENDGAMES

Are the bishops of opposite colors?

Will a pawn queen on the same color as its bishop's domain?

Does one side have the opposition, or can one side get the opposition, and if so, who and how?

Will there be sufficient mating material if one side sacrifices a piece for the last remaining pawn?

Is the position a known endgame position, or can it be turned into one?

TACTICS

What are the immediate threats? (Always consider this before considering how to attack!)

Consider all checks: Is there a tactical shot with a check?

Consider all pawn sacrifices: Is there a winning move via a pawn sacrifice?

Are any pieces overworked?

How many weak moves, and how many mistakes have been made? (Two weak moves = 1 mistake, and 2 mistakes = a loss.)

KING SAFETY

Are any kings exposed?

Are any protecting pawn structures compromised?

PIECE PLACEMENT

Are any pieces in common mating positions (e.g., P at f6, Q able to get to g7) or can they be maneuvered easily into such positions?

Are any pieces aligned badly, such that a skewer or pin or fork might be possible?

Are any pieces trapped (especially a queen or rook)?

Is one side's pieces all on the same side of the board? (If so, try switching the attack to the other side of the board.)

Who has coordinated/uncoordinated pieces, if anyone, and can they  be made more coordinated/uncoordinated? (Especially applies to rooks and bishops.)

----------

(p. 1)
      IMBALANCES

   The heart of my system of training is based on an understanding of
the dynamic and static differences (known as imbalances) that exist
in every position. By recognizing the different imbalances in a given
situation, a player of virtually any strength can understand what his
responsibilities are towards that position with relative ease.
   Note that I used the word "responsibilities." A player can't do
anything he wishes to do. For example, if you love to attack, you
can't go after the enemy King in any and all situations. Instead,
you have to learn to read the board and obey its dictates. If the
board wants you to attack the King, then attack it. If the board
wants you to play in a quiet positional vein, then you must follow
that advice to the letter.

(p. 2)
List of Imbalances

o Minor Pieces--the interplay between Bishops and
Knights (trying to make one superior to the other).
o Pawn Structure--a broad subject that encompasses
doubled pawns, isolated pawns, backward pawns,
passed pawns, etc.
o Space--the annexation of territory on a chess board.
o Material--owning pieces of greater value than the
opponent's.
o Files and squares--files, ranks, and diagonals act as
pathways for your pieces, while squares act as homes.
Whole plans can center around the domination of a file,
or the creation of a weak square in the enemy camp.
o Development--a lead in development gives you
more force in a specific area of the board. This is a
temporary imbalance because the opponent will even-
tually catch up.
(p. 3)
o Initiative--dictating the tempo of a game. This is
also a temporary imbalance.

Silman, Jeremy. 1999. The Amateur's Mind: Turning Chess Misconceptions into Chess Mastery, 2nd Edition/Expanded. Los Angeles, CA: Siles Press.

I like analyzing different ways of thinking about chess analysis. But at some point you cannot improve by "building a better checklist". The correct thinking process is different for everyone, and depends on your playing ability, specifically the number of patterns you have immediately accessible (without thinking) and your calculation ability. I had a mini-breakthrough in online chess when I started using a structured thinking process, but I see now that at some point I have to cram more patterns into my brain. Structured thinking and calculating out many lines helps tremendously, but when a better player can see a pattern instantly and it takes me an hour of calculating out a bunch of variations, I'm not going to beat that player. Say both players end up with a passed pawn, but my opponents passed pawn is outside, and I don't see it until it's too late. My opponent saw a pattern much earlier and recognized it instantly, and no change in thinking or improvement in calculation ability is going to fix that. I just have to see that pattern and be able to recognize it.

@Sqod, that is a long checklist, a good one though.

Thanks. Yes, I have to admit it's the most comprehensive such list I've seen. I also agree with you and rtr1129 that when a list gets too long, people tend not to think of it as a list but rather as a pattern, since humans can store patterns much easier than textual lists.

This is also the kind of list that I would like to see chess engines use--that instead of trying to assess whether a position is good or bad (which they do so poorly), merely give a summary of high-level attributes such as these, maybe flagged with dangerous conditions, and let the human decide exactly what to do.

OTOH, I've been curious about this book as described on Amazon:

Move First, Think Later:
Sense and Nonsense in Improving Your Chess

The chess playing mind does not work like a machine. Selecting a move results from rather chaotic thought processes and is not the logical outcome of applying a rational method. The only problem with that, says International Master Willy Hendriks, is that most books and courses on improving at chess claim exactly the opposite. The dogma of the chess instruction establishment is that if you only take a good look at certain 'characteristics' of a position, then good moves will follow more or less automatically. But this is not how it happens. Chess players, weak and strong, don't first judge the position, then formulate a plan and afterwards look at moves. It all happens at the same time, and pretending that it is otherwise is counterproductive. There is no use in forcing your students to mentally jump through theoretical hoops, according to experienced chess coach Hendriks. This work shows a healthy distrust of accepted methods to get better at chess. It teaches that winning games does not depend on ticking off a to-do list when looking at a position on the board. It presents club and internet chess players with loads of much-needed no-nonsense training material. In this provocative, entertaining and highly instructive book, Hendriks shows how you can travel light on the road to chess improvement!

Just to clarify, I did not intend to create a checklist in my first post. I believe that every checklist, however broad and comprehensive, is bound to fail in the end. Every chess position is different in some way, and besides, chess would have already been solved if it was not so. Patterns can partly help you in understanding a position, but they do not work in every single position (again, in that case chess would have already been solved) when I encounter a new position, I use the simple guidelines I illustrated in the first post to get to grips with it.

@ipcress12 I haven't read the book, but I've heard some good reviews on it. There are other books that contain a number of patterns, such as 

http://www.amazon.com/Techniques-Positional-Play-Practical-Methods/dp/9056914340

which is more general, and

http://www.amazon.com/Chess-Structures-Mauricio-Flores-Rios/dp/1784830003

which focuses on different position types and on the main plans for both sides. There is a review of it on YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jOmS45fXE0