Why is this position evaluated so?

Technical questions regarding Openings, Middlegames, Endings etc.
Post Reply
soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2010
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Why is this position evaluated so?

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Mon Jul 20, 2015 8:55 am

Hi.
Could anyone please tell me why is this position evaluated an unclear?

Barry Sandercock
Posts: 1236
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:52 am

Re: Why is this position evaluated so?

Post by Barry Sandercock » Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:24 am

Soheil Hooshdaran wrote:
Could anyone please tell me why is this position evaluated an unclear?

Who says it is unclear ? I would say that it is quite even, with plenty of play for both sides.

User avatar
Clive Blackburn
Posts: 717
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:33 am
Location: Coventry

Re: Why is this position evaluated so?

Post by Clive Blackburn » Mon Jul 20, 2015 12:56 pm

As Barry says, the position is even, with good chances for each side.

So, the outcome of the game is unclear.
"Tactics flow naturally from a superior strategical position".
Bobby Fischer

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Why is this position evaluated so?

Post by MartinCarpenter » Mon Jul 20, 2015 1:01 pm

Basically it tends to be a statement that there's enough competing things going on in the position that its very hard to be confident in what you're saying about it. Generally good chances of later mistakes in practice.

I guess unclear by itself sometimes tends to imply some sort of equality, but it can get attached to evaluations like unclear but better for white.

Sometimes of course, the evaluation is clear if you put enough work into the position, but the author can't/doesn't feel like doing so :)

soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2010
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: Why is this position evaluated so?

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:18 pm

I was playing a game from from NIC yearbook 35. It said so.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3476
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Why is this position evaluated so?

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:37 am

Some specific things about that position that are probably contributing to the "unclear" verdict: black has a backward isolated pawn on d6 that is likely to become a target of attack in the long term, while white's king is somewhat exposed. It's not immediately obvious which of those two factors is more relevant.

John McKenna
Posts: 3328
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Why is this position evaluated so?

Post by John McKenna » Mon Jul 27, 2015 2:58 pm

The most unclear thing about the position I found was that there seems to be no indication of whose move it is.

Apart from that, and even that doesn't seem to make a huge amount of difference, it seems kind of balanced.
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2010
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: Why is this position evaluated so?

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Sat Aug 01, 2015 10:25 am

IM Jack Rudd wrote:Some specific things about that position that are probably contributing to the "unclear" verdict: black has a backward isolated pawn on d6 that is likely to become a target of attack in the long term, while white's king is somewhat exposed. It's not immediately obvious which of those two factors is more relevant.
That's right. But how is Black gonna use that weakness of the White's King's position. A weakness that cannot be attacked is no weakness, as my IM and FT friend has quotes Alexander Alekhine

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Why is this position evaluated so?

Post by MartinCarpenter » Sat Aug 01, 2015 12:12 pm

There's plenty of pieces still! You can see it causing bad trouble at some stage, or at the very least constraining what white can do elsewhere.

Its a fairly permanent sort of worry really, but its unclear just how much it'll matter in the end - hence the positions evaluation :)

soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2010
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: Why is this position evaluated so?

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Sun Aug 02, 2015 5:08 am

I appreciate all your help.

This position is also evaluated as a +/- and I don't know why



Could someone please help me understand?

NOTE:The position was


and reached the above position after the variation

20... Rfd8 21.Rac1 Nxa2 22. Rxd8+ Rxd8 23. Ra1 Nb4 24. Rxa7

soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2010
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: Why is this position evaluated so?

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Sun Aug 02, 2015 10:02 am

Why is this position evaluated as slightly better for White?


Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16082
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Why is this position evaluated so?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Aug 02, 2015 11:48 am

soheil_hooshdaran wrote:Why is this position evaluated as slightly better for White?
More space I would think.

soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2010
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: Why is this position evaluated so?

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Sun Aug 02, 2015 12:14 pm

What constitutes White's initiative in:



?

soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2010
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: Why is this position evaluated so?

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Sun Aug 02, 2015 12:16 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
soheil_hooshdaran wrote:Why is this position evaluated as slightly better for White?
More space I would think.
More space, central pawn majority, half-open c-file, the outpost on e5, what else?

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Why is this position evaluated so?

Post by Michael Flatt » Sun Aug 02, 2015 12:21 pm

What is the source of this position?

Is it possible to identify the players involved ?

What actual words did the annotator use to describe and evaluate the position?

What was the final result, assuming that it was taken from an actual game?

Post Reply