what is analysis?

" Afer analytical skill, the next most important chess skill is evaluation. For positions, this means answering the questions: Which side stands better? How much
better? and Why? " [Heisman, 2010]

I'm confused... If someone like chess theory and want explain in details what is "analysis" and "positional evaluation" and want extend explain what is postional and strategy, I would like that... Thanks in advance...

This is how I define them.

Analysis: A combination of calculation and evaluation. You calculate more than 1 line, you render an evaluation for each line, and then you compare those evaluations and choose the best one. All of this together is analysis.

Evaluation: Which side stands better and why.

Calculation: Moving pieces around in your head. Could also be called visualization.

Tactics: Short term forcing sequences (e.g. forks, pins)

Positional: Short term non-forcing sequences (e.g. rook on open file, knight on outpost)

Strategic: Long term plans (e.g. trade into an endgame and make a passed pawn with my pawn majority on the queenside which will pull his king away so I can infiltrate and win on the kingside)

Note that in a real game all of this blends together. You'll rarely make a move based solely on calculation, a move will rarely be purely tactical or strategic, etc. Part of what makes chess so much fun is there are often competing elements. A move can be very well calculated, but you rendered a poor evaluation so you mistakenly ignore it. A move can be strategically justified but fail tactically. A sequence can be an elaborate, even beautiful, tactical combination, but fail on positional grounds (poorly placed pieces) or strategic grounds (a drawn or lost endgame).

But, at least in my experience, there are no 100% agreed upon terms.

People use words like calculation, visualization, and analysis, interchangeably... which makes sense. Because how can we calculate a 3 move sequence without ignoring other moves? And how can we ignore moves without first having some kind of evaluation that tells us which moves to calculate? So it all blends together.

People also sometimes use the words positional and strategic interchangeably, and the words tactics and combinations interchangeably. These uses are not always correct IMO, but it's something to be aware of.

Wow, thanks!

Just as in physics, where scientists seek a unification, I think that perhaps there is a simple and elegant formula that allows, in a logical way, to decide the best moves.

Dan Heisman in "Elements of Positional Evaluation" comes closer. For example, it speaks of psudeo-elemetos, such as Material, Space, and Development.

I think it is possible to see chess in a purely scientific way, ignoring the artistic side and the sport, since chess is a complete information game.

The main idea is in chess the best move is not something negotiable, it is not something that your mood, your culture, or your personal aspirations have to interfere with. In addition, abstractions like Material or Space are under more basic elements. Karpov considers the supreme law of chess the activity of the pieces. Heisman also puts it quite simply: the game ends when the king's activity is limited to zero (the king can not move). And the material is sob activity laws, since a captured piece has its activity evaluated to 0 (zero). Forcing moves must have a great deal of relation to the activity, since when being in question the mobility (and therefore the activity) of all other pieces are limited to 0 (zero) if you should move your king.

This may not have any practical value (sport) and may not be very aesthetic (art), but it is the absolute truth in which, just as 2 + 2 = 4 does not have to be beautiful, it is not under the judgment of human emotion. Descartes should love chess, I think! Francis Bacon also, both considered the pillars of modern science

"Calculation: Moving pieces around in your head. Could also be called visualization."

Correspondence chess havent calculation! When we can move the pieces, we can seen right now the position... Interesting!

" Static features are factors based upon where the pieces are situated on the board.
Dynamic features are based upon analysis; i.e., mentally moving the pieces. This
book addresses how static features affect the value of the pieces in a given position. For example, idoubledpawns (a staticfeature) are ofen harmful. but are
sometimes beneficial. then there must be something more basic than doubled
pawns on which one could/should base his positional evaluation - something
that will help one determine when doubled pawns are good or bad and by how
much. These more basic "somethings," when found and identifed, will then become our elements. " [Heisman, 2010]

In this case I can give my own definition:

Analysis is a group of positions connecting in the same assessment.

For example, a combination with checkmate defines a group of positions where each has the same judgment: checkmate. There is mate in the first position and in the last position.

Incomplete analyzes appear when we postulate. 1.e4 and white is better! But we cant say 'white checkmate in N moves', but we can try to maintain our evaluation in next moves ... 1.e4 is all about center, space and development, in this case, white try maintain that initial evaluation by conecting each postion in a sequence where each postion has the same evaluation!

Interesting, is not it?