Who's Winning?

I play a lot of chess with my students before school and during lunch and get this question too often: who's winning? "Well, it looks pretty close...and... uh...anything could happen. BTW...DON'T ASK NOW...can't you see I'm trying to think!" 

I did a google search and found this:

First chess player who classified the advantages in chess was Wilhelm Steinitz who claimed there are nine advantages: lead in development, mobility of the pieces, seizure of the center, position of the enemy king, weak squares in the opponent’s position, superior pawn formation, pawn majority on the queen-side, open files and the advantage of the two bishops.

Is there another method of calculation to determine who's winning? I don't think I'd be able to take into consideration all nine advantages when playing a blitz match at work with my students.

yeah, they help, as well as lead in material, positional trumps, and a neat tactic (if its your move).

Thanks for the reply.

Actually what I meant to say: Is there a simple method to calculate during an OTB match who's winning?

My students ask me at school, and I don't have a simple or fast answer when the game is close. Now, when White is up one rook plus a queen, the answer is easy unless Black has some amazing position or game ending combination to unleash.

After counting material, is there a simple method of calculation for determining overall advantage?  Below are two examples of chess positions arrived at after the Caro-Kann opening. Material is equal. Black to move. Who's winning?

 Material is still equal, but Black has a bad bishop. Which side controls more squares now? White is better developed. Overall, who's winning?

Yes, a chess engine. For example, Fritz 9 at depth 14 rates the second position in your post above as +0.43, meaning that White is ahead by 0.43 pawns. (FWIW, Fruit 2.3.1 at depth 14 says +0.56.)

In order to assess a position, an engine will look at all the tactical and strategic factors in the position.

(in the 2 example above it isnt fair to say one is winning over the other(well at our patzer level). One side may have the advantage depending on piece mobility, controlled squares etc.

For amateurs at this point in the game, material should be one of the main prioritites! 

In the top example i prefer white and in the bottom i think both sides are pretty equal.

Im finding it hard to put in words why i would prefer one of the sides over the other....

Thanks for the reply!

Oh my! That was fast! How long did it take your computer to perform the calculation? So, by Fritz saying White is ahead by 0.43 pawns, it means that White enjoys an overall advantage of 0.43?

In chessbooks, I have learned that advantage is expressed as follows:

=/Equality or equal chances

+=/White has a slight advantage

+-/White has a clear advantage

++-/White has a winning advantage

What numerical range would Fritz attach to each of the following possibilities above? I need to look into this chess program. My students won't bother me anymore. I'll just tell them to ask Fritz.      Now, I'm not their formal chess teacher. Just an average but serious wood pusher who enjoys playing with them, if that makes any sense. Thank you!

I'm definitely at the patzer level.  

Hmm. I'd rather play as White in example two. Black's  bishops are no longer well paced and White has castled. It also looks like White enjoys greater mobility. At my patzer level of play, I wouldn't have any fun repairing Black's position. It looks far too difficult, especially after half a day of teaching has gone by, I'm tired, and it's time for lunch and chess with the students.

Oh my! That was fast! How long did it take your computer to perform the calculation?

About two mintues, as it only went to depth 14 (which is 14 half-moves, or 7 full moves). Getting to depth 20 might take over an hour (depending on the position).

So, by Fritz saying White is ahead by 0.43 pawns, it means that White enjoys an overall advantage of 0.43?

If I understand you correctly, yes. This +0.43 takes into account basically everything in the position (the material, the possible moves, the quality of the pieces, any weak squares, etc.).

What numerical range would Fritz attach to each of the following possibilities above?

I can't remember the exact values. Here is a screenshot of Fritz analysing the position (though at low depth):

http://i45.tinypic.com/2ugdxfc.jpg

Regards,
Tom

Roughly speaking in computer terms, 0 - 0.3 is = , 0.3 - 0.7 is +=, 0.7 - 1.4 is +/-, greater than 1.4 is +-.

I think it is wise to say when in doubt "not yet decided" "roughly equal so far" etc.

Yes. You understood me correctly.

Again, I'll need to investigate the purchase of Fritz, as not only will it help in answering student queries, but also improve my understanding of positional play.

---------------------------

 Roughly speaking in computer terms, 0 - 0.3 is = , 0.3 - 0.7 is +=, 0.7 - 1.4 is +/-, greater than 1.4 is +-.   - marvellosity

Then I will endeavor to reach a score of 1.4 or greater in my chess matches. Thanks!

-------------------------------

A myrid of books have been published (i.e. Point Count Chess, Pawn Power in Chess, and my favorite,My System). - eainca

I just received My System in the mail a few days ago, of all things. Time to crack it open.  

------------------------------------

Outstanding replies. Thanks everyone.

The ability to answer that question (who's better) -- quickly... is one of the things that makes a master a master and a patzer a patzer. Master's do it quickly and correctly, patzers... well, not so much...

The short answer is no there is no quick easy way (but a GM can do it quick and easily in most positions) -- understanding positional themes helps a lot. In the opening development matters quite a bit. If you want to learn how to count development, there are some excellent videos on chess.com that will teach you how to evaluate development fairly precisely. But even in the opening, development isn't everything. Piece activity, connected rooks, King safety, outpost squares, pawn structure, hidden tactical opportunities... evaluating a position is major chess skill.

A master knows (most of the time, most games) not just who is better overall, but which side of the board he stands better on, and where his attacking chances are, or aren't, and where his opponent's best chances lie -- this is a big part (perhaps the biggest part) of why masters are so good -- they don't make disconnected irrelevant moves that go against the natural outlines of the position...

Many things go into the question: who stands better? (actually, a thing that masters generally consider a real plus in a position is a position that indicates a clear plan! It's quite helpful.)  Saying who stands better in materially balanced games is not a trivial skill.

Great post! “Masters do it quickly. “ Amazing.

Here’s a different example where BOTH material and development are equal, as it relates to number of pieces moved, not quality of the move.  I only use this for instructive purposes, as the open could be completely horrible for one side. I have no idea. ChessPad identifies the opening as B00 – Owen Defence.  

I’ll devise a simple point system for now to determine the advantage for White or Black based on squares controlled.    

1.  Only the squares controlled by developed pieces and non developed pieces behind pushed pawns are counted.

2.  Squares where one side has control are worth one point each.

3.  Squares where both sides have control are worth half a point each.

4.  Squares on the back two ranks are not counted.

5. Points attributed to occupied squares only go to the attacker or defender. The piece occupying that square is not awarded a point for that square.  

Refinements to this point system are most welcomed. This task could increase exponentially if I were to factor in squares that are under a double attack, or likewise, doubly defended. Perhaps that’s where the strength of a square comes into play. How a Grand Master does all of this in his/her head under the constraints of time is beyond my understanding.  

White:  22 points. 

Nc3 = 3, Bc1 = 4.5, Bf1 = 4.5, d4 = 1.5, e4 = 1.5, Qd1 = 5, Ke1 = 2.

Black:  5.5 points. 

Bb7 = 2, b6 = 1.5, Nf6 = 2.

-----

Nf6 has no safe square to land on. It makes me wonder whether or not to have White play 4.Nf3.

Who’s winning? White has 22 points to Black’s mere 5.5.

Would Gary Kasparov shake his head and resign after only three opening moves by White? Remember, there’s both material and developmental equality, as it relates to movement, not quality of the move.

-----

Tom – This chess opening is far too complex for simplistic point counting schemes! Please fire up Fritz and set it to depth 20. I find it hard to believe that Black is in such dire straits that resignation is the only answer! 

Regards,

Chet

-----

Final Thought:

This seemingly ridiculous exercise, counting squares, reminds me of yet another book recently purchased titled Chess Target Practice: Battle Tactics For Every Square On The Board by Bruce Pandolfini (1994). In the book there are 192 problems arranged by square!

Still, for all intents and purposes, the number-crunching done by computers is functionally equivalent to analysis of the strategic and tactical possibilities in a position. In fact, they usually do it better than people.

Wow! So I AM winning against my chess coach because he is down a bishop!  

The only problem is that he sacrificed his bishop in order to teach me a lesson. I'll get clobbered in the end.

-----

I like to tell my students, "Ah, it's far too close to call right now."

 "But you just took his knight."

"Like I said, this game is far too complex for anyone to know who's gonna win until it's over.  Anything could go wrong, and probably will, for both sides."

--------

My previous posted diagram went bad. It's now fixed and displayed below as well.

A question for the master.   Which side of the board would you prefer to play and why? No worries. This is no ongoing game that will end in surrealism.

I'm no engine expert, but I'm pretty sure that engines have a good deal of positional understanding built in. For example, if you have a strong knight on a good outpost, the engine doesn't simply see a knight -- it sees a knight worth much more than your average knight, as does a knowledgeable human.

Chet -- Fruit 2.3.1, at depth 17 (I don't have time to go higher right now!), rates that position as 0.39 pawns in White's favour. But a chess engine can only give you a rough idea at such an early stage in the game. Same as a human. :)

Thanks Tom!

Depth 17 was very generous on your part.  

My guess is that white enjoys a 0.39 advantage because of the center pawns. Now, I wouldn't mind playing as Black, as the Bishop is fianchettoed on the longest diagonal, and I see other opportunities for Black as well. I don't think Gary Kasparov needs to resign just yet playing as Black.

tonydal -- I'm aware that computers don't work by "feel", like a human does. I was saying that a computer looks at all the tactical and strategic factors in the position, even if it processes everything as numbers.

Chet -- The fact that White has the first move is another factor. Out of morbid curiosity, I once let Fritz analyse, very deeply, the starting position in a game of chess, and if I recall correctly it determined the position to be something like +0.23. I guess it determined that White's initiative was worth 0.23 pawns.

Regards,
Tom

Yes... but I think most players have an opinion most of the time, and strong players tend to have a strong opinion most of time -- I think if you stopped most master games in the middle game and said, "he offers draw here what would you do?" I think  "I don't know" would be a rare answer -- and more often the answer would be either, "forget it, I'm better," or "accepted! I'm worse" -- or " hmmm, we're equal and both still have winning chances so I'd want to know my tournament situation (which please note isn't 'I don't know' it's a specific evaluation of equal)"

All this reminds me of Nigel Short's tongue-in-cheek draw offer advice... "When your opponent offers draw, try to figure out why he thinks you're winning!"

So how do you get your engine to evaluate a static position? When I try to do a "deep position analysis" with Fritz or Rybka, it wants to know whose turn it is to move. Then it tells me what are the strongest moves to play, not its evalution of the current static position.