Positional advantage

[Nordlandia]

Peter that's a nice website.

https://hxim.github.io/Stockfish-Evaluation-Guide/

Is it recently launched?

[peter]

Static Eval of SF from this site
https://hxim.github.io/Stockfish-Evaluation-Guide/
is 3.86 for the first and 3.90 for the second position.

That's the problem with "Eval" as we are used to use the term, the for me common meaning depends on search, maybe we should better distinguish between static and dynamic Eval

Considering that I'd have here dynamic or "Output- Eval" of SF to compare to its static one of the Bishop- pair- position after a five moves Forward- Backward:

[d]r2qkb1r/ppp1n1pp/4p3/6B1/3pP3/5Q2/PPP2PPP/R3KB1R b KQkq - 0 1

Analysis by pedantFishW_2017-04-08_popcnt:

10...Qd6 11.Bb5+ c6 12.Be2 Ng6 13.Qb3 Be7 14.Bd2 0-0-0 15.Bg4 Kc7 16.Qxe6 Rde8 17.Qb3 Bg5 18.0-0-0 Bxd2+ 19.Rxd2 Rxe4 20.Bf3 Re7 21.Rhd1 Rd8 22.Qa4 Qc5 23.Rxd4 Rxd4 24.Qxd4 Qxd4 25.Rxd4 Rf7 26.Kd2 Ne5 27.Ke3 Nxf3 28.gxf3 Rf5 29.a4 Re5+ 30.Kd3 Rh5 31.h4 Rf5 32.Ke3 g6 33.Rg4 Kd6 34.Rg5 Ke6
+/= (0.58) Depth: 35/51 00:01:28 2116MN

[peter]

I know it since about start of this year, as far as I remember, but I don't know how long it's already online

[Nordlandia]

I know it since about start of this year, as far as I remember, but I don't know how long it's already online

Most of the time i find static evaluation wrong compared to normal engine evaluation.

What is the usefulness of static evaluation generally?

[peter]

Most of the time i find static evaluation wrong compared to normal engine evaluation.

Well, I wouldn't call it wrong, it's simply the summation of the eval- parameters coded, you can read about those on the site given too.
What you call "normal" eval is just the result of all the evaluations of the follow- up positions found and selectively ranked one by one by the engine.
So this kind of eval depends on search as well as this is just the other way round too.
Yet being able to see static eval of an engine position by position helps to understand both better, static and dynamic one

[Nordlandia]

That website evaluates this position ->

End game evaluation = -196 (-0.79)

[d]6k1/pp3p2/6p1/3p4/2pN4/P1P2P1P/1P1qR1P1/6K1 b - - 0 1

Already assumed to be engine draw.

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 37&start=0

-----

https://hxim.github.io/Stockfish-Evaluation-Guide/

[Nordlandia]

Bishop pair advantage +0.70

[d]1r2kb1r/pp3p1p/4p1p1/P1p1n3/R2n4/2NP2P1/1P2PPBP/2B2RK1 b k - 0 16

Imbalance ->

[d]4k2r/pp3ppp/1q2p2n/2npP3/1P3P2/4B2P/P1N1B1P1/1R1K3R b k - 0 17

Imbalance ->

[d]7r/pp1k1ppp/4p3/3pP3/5q2/3BN2P/PP1K2P1/1R5R w - - 0 21

[peter]

That website evaluates this position ->

End game evaluation = -196 (-0.79)

[d]6k1/pp3p2/6p1/3p4/2pN4/P1P2P1P/1P1qR1P1/6K1 b - - 0 1

Already assumed to be engine draw.

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 37&start=0

-----

https://hxim.github.io/Stockfish-Evaluation-Guide/

Well, so if that's a drawn position, the static eval is the better one here compared to the dynamic output- eval after some forward- backward:

6k1/pp3p2/6p1/3p4/2pN4/P1P2P1P/1P1qR1P1/6K1 b - - 0 1

Analysis by pedantFishW_2017-04-08_popcnt:

1...Qd1+ 2.Kf2 Qc1 3.Kg3 Kg7 4.Kf2 Kf8 5.Kg3 Kg8 6.Re8+ Kg7 7.Re2 Qa1 8.Kf4 Kf6 9.Kg3 Qc1 10.Kf2 a6 11.Kg3 Qg1 12.Re8 Qf1 13.Re2 Qb1 14.Kf2 Qd1 15.Kg3 Qa1 16.Kf2 Kg7 17.Rc2 Kg8 18.Re2 Qd1 19.Kg3 Qc1 20.Kf2 Qb1 21.Kg3 Kg7 22.Kf2 Kf6 23.Kg3 Qc1 24.Kf2 Qa1 25.Kg3 Qf1 26.Re8 Qd3 27.Re1
-/+ (-1.35) Depth: 47/76 00:02:28 4785MN, tb=1253690

That's funny because in the output- line there isn't any progress to be seen neither

[MikeGL]

⚖️ | +0.70

[d]1r2rk2/p3pp1p/2p3p1/2N2b2/8/PPR2P2/2P3PP/2K4R b - - 0 0



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

[d]4k2r/2p2ppp/p3b3/2b1P3/1p6/1P6/P3QPPP/n3N1K1 w k - 0 0

An interesting position arises in which
Black's chances are not at all worse than those
he obtains with quiet continuations. Practice
has shown that he has sufficient resources to
sustain his counterplay.

What these last examples had in common
was the characteristic exchanging operation
of queen for rook, minor piece and pawn. An
important issue, we should note, is whether
the minor piece in the transaction is a bishop
or a knight. As a rule, a bishop in this context
is considerably stronger. If in addition there
are two "healthy" extra pawns, then the queen
is more than compensated for, and the side
with rook plus bishop plus two pawns has a
significant advantage. As we have seen, if the
material balance is "queen versus rook, bishop
and pawn {or the initiative)" , the chances are
roughly equal. On the other hand in the case
of "queen versus rook, knight and pawn" , the
queen usually proves stronger.

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

[d]r4rk1/4qppp/p2pp3/np6/5P2/1BN1BN2/PPP3PP/R4RK1 b - - 0 15

[d]rn1q1r2/p1p1ppkp/1p4p1/8/2BP4/2N2N2/PP3PPP/R1B1K2R b KQ - 0 11

Very nice positions. I enjoy analyzing most of your posts. Thanks

[Nordlandia]

⚖️ | -1.25

[pgn][Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "New game"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "11"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. Bd3 Nc6 5. h3 Nxd4 6. Bxh7 *[/pgn]



https://lichess.org/4soh6OAS#11