English Chess Forum

Hi.
Could anyone please tell me why is this position evaluated an unclear?
2rq1rk1/1p2bppp/p2p1n2/P7/4PB2/2NB1P1b/1PPQ1R1P/R5K1 w - - 0 16

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.

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

So, the outcome of the game is unclear.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

I appreciate all your help.

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

3r2k1/R4ppp/1p2p3/8/1n6/1P3KP1/1B2PP1P/8 b - - 0 24

Could someone please help me understand?

NOTE:The position was
2r2rk1/p4ppp/1p2p3/8/1n6/1P3KP1/PB2PP1P/R2R4 b - - 0 20

and reached the above position after the variation

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

Why is this position evaluated as slightly better for White?

r2q1rk1/1ppbbpp1/2n1pn1p/8/p1NP4/P2Q1NP1/1P2PPBP/R1BR2K1 b - - 0 13

soheil_hooshdaran wrote:Why is this position evaluated as slightly better for White?

More space I would think.

What constitutes White's initiative in:

r1b1k2r/1pqn1ppp/p3pb2/8/2PN2P1/P3B3/1PQ2P1P/2KR1B1R b kq - 0 13

?

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?

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?