Answers.Body: <p>Stockfish's static evaluation function tries to get a general sense of the position using predefined values for predefined tags. While the values and tags have been refined a lot over the years, when you have 10^120 variations, its accuracy would obviously suffer.</p>
  <p>Static evaluator is bound to make mistakes like declaring a position winning/losing but missing a narrow path to equality. This seems to be a similar case. When you look at multiple lines recommended by lichess, the top 5 are <code>0, -0.1, -0.1, -0.2, -0.3</code>. So, the average assessment is favouring black, though not to the degree as static evaluator shows.</p>
  <p>To understand why static evaluator favours black we could look at the tags it uses and the values it assigns to those tags. Here's the graph visualisation of your position:</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/FAcs3YVo.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/FAcs3YVo.png" alt="SF evaluation guide's graph" /></a></p>
  <p>Like you showed, it evaluates to <code>-0.48</code>. To compare how brittle this evaluation is without tree analysis, let's make one of white's most obvious moves - castling. The evaluation drops down to <code>0.09</code> and the new graph is as follows:</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/eAjeIOQv.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/eAjeIOQv.png" alt="Graph after castling" /></a></p>
  <pre><code>[title &quot;Position after castling&quot;]
  [Fen &quot;3qkbnr/p1pp1ppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/R2Q1RK1 b k - 1 1&quot;]
  </code></pre>
  <p>Tags responsible for the change in evaluation were <strong>Pqst bonus</strong> <em>(increased since a rook on <code>f1</code> is more valuable than the rook on <code>h1</code>)</em>, <strong>Mobility bonus</strong> <em>(by design, king is considered to restrict rook's mobility, hence post castling the <code>f1</code> rook is more mobile)</em>, <strong>Trapped rook</strong> <em>(again, by design <code>h1</code> and <code>h8</code> rooks were trapped due to the king until white castled and escaped the trap)</em> and <strong>Tempo</strong> <em>(person with the turn gets some points)</em>.</p>
  <p>As players, we just don't have such computerish fragmented thinking. Moreover our evaluation is shaped by our experiences. Thus, trying to fit a universal explanation to stockfish's inaccurate static evaluation may not be the most fruitful exercise.</p>
  <p>Coming to the 2nd part of <strong>how black plays this position out</strong>, I honestly do believe picking either side has its pros and cons. I played out some practise games against stockfish with either colour and this is what I inferred.</p>
  <p><strong>As black</strong>, you try to castle asap. White can actually pose serious threats to prevent black's development. <code>Nf6</code> is met by <code>e4</code> threatening <code>e5</code>. Bishop can't comfortably develop to <code>c5</code> or <code>b4</code>. But if black manages to castle and hold white's pawn advance with appropriate pawn breaks, the 2 pieces for 1 are going to make their presence felt.</p>
  <p><strong>As white</strong> you have a fairly simple plan. Push the pawns. Use them to restrict the bishop, as well as play for pawn promotion with those extra pawns.</p>
  <p>Even after all this analysis though, I can't say which side is better. I'd probably take white on shorter time control and against weaker players since I have some experience playing the Cochrane Gambit and since pawn storms are scary in shorter time controls. Note that Cochrane gambit has similar objectives for white (restrict the opponent and play for long term advantage).</p>
  <p>In longer time controls and against equal players, I'd take black since I'd have time to figure out the nuances. Against stronger players, I know I'd lose no matter which colour I choose (oh, it rhymes!).</p>
  <p>Had a fun time exploring this position, thanks for the question.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-27T03:12:17.443Z
Answers.Text: Thanks for your response. Yes I already know most of what you're saying, that's why I asked for a human explanation if there is one and it is humanly possible to grasp. I gather from your post that you feel there is no clear positional advantage for either side, and that it may be slightly harder for Black under time pressure. But you haven't addressed the plausible hypothesis I cited that Black may actually have an advantage because White's rooks cannot easily attack anything. Did you not face that problem when playing as White? By the way, what is your rating?
Answers.UserDisplayName: user21820
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-27T04:03:45.210Z
Answers.Text: Sure the rooks aren't active yet, but they'd eventually be.. I mean it's not like black has 8 pawns and can completely shut the position down. My rating? Never ask a women her age and a man his rating :P (btw SF lv6 and lv7). Here's a good sample line i got against lv 6 (1. O-O Ne7 2. e4 c6 3. d4 Ng6 4. Qg4 Bd6 5. e5 Bc7 6. f4 Qh4 7. Qf3 Ne7 8. g3 Qh3 9. f5 g6 10. fxg6 Nxg6 11. Qxf7+ Kd8 { White resigns. } 0-1).
Answers.UserDisplayName: Rishav Raj
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-27T04:20:46.140Z
Answers.Text: the questions as I understood them were (1). Why does the static evaluation favour black (2). If possible provide a human  explanation (3). If black can hold, how. I believe I tried to answer them to the best of my ability (though ideally, no. of questions should not be more than 1).  Always happy to discuss my answer, but please don't make accusations about not addressing the 4th thing that was discussed entirely in the comment section.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Rishav Raj
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-27T06:29:43.223Z
Answers.Text: I didn't intend to accuse. I just noticed that you didn't address the no-minor-piece issue, which I had brought up 16 hr before your answer. I didn't know that you had not read those comments either. As for your rating, I asked only because you said you would lose against stronger players... Your sample line has you playing which side? Thanks! (By the way, another user *IanRingrose* thinks that skilled players would prefer Black in this position. Those two aspects make me unable to be confident about your claim that it's very equal.)
Answers.UserDisplayName: user21820
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-27T12:17:57.827Z
Answers.Text: I'd read the comments, but addition of extra questions would make it [too broad](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/267058/how-to-handle-a-question-that-asks-many-things). Note: I never **claimed** that the position is equal (lichess did that). I gave my **subjective** assessment of the position. If you keep comparing people's subjective assessments, you'd never get a common answer. And if you wanted a subjective assessment by an IM/GM, you should've added that in the question (term 'expert' is arbitrary)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Rishav Raj
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-27T14:06:40.403Z
Answers.Text: I played white, black made a random blunder at the end, but the position before that is acceptable for white (in my assessment of course)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Rishav Raj
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-08-01T09:43:03.410Z
Answers.Text: how did you come up with those labels in the graph?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Andrea Nerla
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-08-01T10:08:31.873Z
Answers.Text: I didn't. These labels have been hardcoded by stockfish for static evaluation. You can have a look for their values for any position [here](https://hxim.github.io/Stockfish-Evaluation-Guide/) (look for graph in the toolbar at top)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Rishav Raj
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-27T01:48:03.813Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-07-27T01:54:01.340Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2024-07-27T01:54:01.340Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Rishav Raj
Answers.Body: <p>The system of counting material points is a flawed abstraction and this is one of the situations where it breaks down. R+2 is generally only better than N+B in open endgames. In this position the rooks are not yet developed and will have trouble finding open lines, so the knight and bishop are preferable if anything.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-26T07:58:11.063Z
Answers.Text: I know just counting material is a poor heuristic for static evaluation even in a quiet position, but can you confirm that open lines for the rook is really the main factor here? It sounds very reasonable, but I don't have expert-level understanding and that's what I seek. Thanks!
Answers.UserDisplayName: user21820
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-26T08:10:54.863Z
Answers.Text: That is to say, the best static evaluation function for SF (and for humans) would have material balance as the primary factor, so I just want to check that you think the main secondary factor that counter-balances that in this particular position is the lack of open lines for the rook for White.
Answers.UserDisplayName: user21820
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-26T10:28:38.957Z
Answers.Text: I think I cannot believe this answer, because [this position has an open line for White's rook but has even worse score](https://hxim.github.io/Stockfish-Evaluation-Guide/?p=3qkbnr%2Fp1pp1ppp%2F8%2F8%2F8%2F8%2FPPPPPPPP%2FR2QK2R%20w%20KQk%20-%200%201), and [a full SF search shows that Black's advantage is real](https://lichess.org/analysis/3qkbnr/p1pp1ppp/8/8/8/8/P1PPPPPP/R2QK2R_w_KQk_-_0_1).
Answers.UserDisplayName: user21820
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-28T16:38:51.130Z
Answers.Text: Rook do not always need open lines. They are often lifted (Rf1-h3-h3)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Philip Roe
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-26T05:06:41.703Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-07-26T05:06:41.703Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Cleveland
Answers.Body: <p>If the evaluation changes by 0.57 after White makes one obvious move, that tells you one thing for sure. The computer is at sea here and has no idea what is going on. Mostly that is because nothing really is going on.</p>
  <p>In the regular initial position, all is symmetrical so the position will be judged equal regardless of whether any valid insights are built into the evaluator. Here the position is asymmetrical. Pluses and minuses have to be balanced in ways that are not obvious, especially if you let yourself be restricted to a static evaluation. White has pawns that are still flexible and can be used to control space, but to what end? I can see perhaps three possibilities.</p>
  <p>The first is to try and launch a K-side attack, but the K-side is not yet weakened in any way so there are no targets. Also, the major pieces usually need backup, as others have noted. (You have no minors to sacrifice!) The second is to open lines so as to expose weaknesses for the Rooks to attack but any weakness so created can likely be defended by a minor piece and will not be vulnerable. The third is expand slowly all across the board and try to run Black out of moves. Asking a master to choose between these may tell you more about the individual style of that master than about any objective concerning the position. The placement of the Pawns is such that White can easily create a passed Pawn but not a pair of them. For myself I would opt for number 3, reserving 1 and 2 as options if the opportunity presents itself.</p>
  <p>From the Black POV, I see little prospect of early aggression. I would be most concerned to find stable squares for my minor pieces. To find them I may have to wait until White shows their hand. For example, if they go for Pawns on f4, e5, d4, I might go for Pawns on f7, g6, h5, with Ne7 and Bh6.</p>
  <p>In practice, I think I would prefer White because it seems very hard for White to lose. They just build a solid Pawn structure as above, centralize all of their pieces and wait. What can go wrong? White seems to have more control over how the game develops. Turning this into a win would involve following the advice usually given for converting slightly superior positions. Don't rush, dont over-commit, stay flexible, be alert for oportunities.</p>
  <p>FWIW, my rating used to be about 2300 FIDE but that was before senility made me blunder-prone.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-27T21:35:25.620Z
Answers.Text: Interesting take. Just as a thought experiment, which side would you pick in a must win situation? Also, if forced to take black, would you play for a win or a draw?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Rishav Raj
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-28T16:36:41.837Z
Answers.Text: In a must-win situation I would take white. If forced to take Black I would feel helpless against an opponent content to draw
Answers.UserDisplayName: Philip Roe
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-31T04:06:15.650Z
Answers.Text: You are correct that static evaluation is misleading if the obvious move changes it by a lot. But in this case, the so-called 'obvious move' that leads to a better static value by 0.57 is castling, but it's just a piece-square bonus that favours castled kings, and we can't just stop there if we want to understand how SF evaluates the position, since we have to let Black also develop otherwise we are unfairly giving White the benefit of the last move. After castling, and after Black develops the bishop, it goes back to −0.17, and 2 moves later it is −0.25. [cont]
Answers.UserDisplayName: user21820
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-31T04:11:11.163Z
Answers.Text: [cont] The point is not that these numbers are correct, but that just looking at what happens after one move doesn't convincingly explain why SF evaluates the starting position so unexpectedly. Since you say your rating used to be 2300, I'll just take it that you think it actually favours White, and that your approach would be a careful pawn expansion. Thanks! By the way I am not the downvoter..
Answers.UserDisplayName: user21820
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-10-29T02:32:43.280Z
Answers.Text: *The computer is at sea here and has no idea what is going on. Mostly that is because nothing really is going on* This is surely not the case; the computer has no idea what is going on because it isn't searching (static evaluation means "tell me what you think of this position without searching").
Answers.UserDisplayName: Allure
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-10-29T19:57:04.537Z
Answers.Text: @Allure I agree that static evaluation avoids searching. But what else is there to do, apart from a point count? Nobody is threatening anything, Nobody has an outpost. Nobody controls an open line. No body has a plan (that I can see). I just don't find any way to apply conventional positional judgements with any confidence. No significant action haas happened or is about to happen. Material is "about equal" What is the poor computer to make of that?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Philip Roe
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-27T19:08:27.887Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-07-28T17:43:02.340Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2024-07-28T17:43:02.340Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Philip Roe
Body: <p>I was experimenting with SF static evaluation and found that <a href="https://hxim.github.io/Stockfish-Evaluation-Guide/?p=3qkbnr%2Fp1pp1ppp%2F8%2F8%2F8%2F8%2FPPPPPPPP%2FR2QK2R%20w%20KQk%20-%200%201" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the following position is evaluated as slightly in favour of Black</a>.</p>
  <pre><code>    [Title &quot;White to move&quot;]
      [FEN &quot;3qkbnr/p1pp1ppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/R2QK2R w KQk - 0 1&quot;]
  </code></pre>
  <p>I do not understand why. <a href="https://lichess.org/analysis/3qkbnr/p1pp1ppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/R2QK2R_w_KQk_-_0_1?color=white" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Lichess things it is a draw</a>, but my question is why the static evaluation favours Black since it looks to me like it favours White. Is there any reason for this, preferably a human explanation? It would be nice to get an explanation for how Black can hold despite having slightly less material, but that is probably too complicated, and I was curious to know in human terms why SF static evaluation actually favoured Black (even with no search).</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-07-26T06:17:14.440Z
Comments.Text: Please note that static evaluation means pretty much nothing. Chess is a game of concrete lines rather than abstract concepts. "Human" explanations like ("but oh look at this open file") are just ad hoc justifications
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-07-26T07:56:09.907Z
Comments.Text: @David: I know enough about chess and programming to know that you are going to get absolutely nowhere if you only search lines and have no static evaluation other than win/draw/loss. SF works well because of its alpha-beta search plus fine-grained static evaluation plus heavy pruning.
Comments.UserDisplayName: user21820
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-07-26T08:29:50.693Z
Comments.Text: Just need oxygen to survive. That doesn't mean oxygen without water will get you good results though.
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-07-26T09:00:41.147Z
Comments.Text: @David: You are somewhat contradicting yourself... "means pretty much nothing" is very very far away from "is not absolutely necessary". A good static evaluation can greatly multiply the effective search depth (compared to one with none at all), so it isn't unreasonable to say that static evaluation can be a good approximation to a search. I don't see any problem with having ad-hoc justifications as long as they make enough sense; **all** imperfect heuristics are ad-hoc anyway, including quiescence search and pruning (which are absolutely necessary for reaching the kind of depth SF does).
Comments.UserDisplayName: user21820
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-07-26T09:26:24.610Z
Comments.Text: I think my point is pretty clear. Evaluation is meaningless without search. Search is meaningless without analysis. I think you're perfectly capable of understanding that.
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-07-26T09:35:32.257Z
Comments.Text: If that was your point, I don't disagree. But there must be a reason why the SF static evaluation has been fine-tuned this way, because it must perform well on the majority of cases. Either it is correct about this position being slightly better for Black, and so the question is why, or it is wrong about this position. Are you sure which it is? You can't just say there isn't such a thing as positional advantage; that is how all good chess players think besides tactics!
Comments.UserDisplayName: user21820
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-07-26T10:01:38.447Z
Comments.Text: The position isn't slightly better for Black, that's why after analysis SF doesn't think it is. Positional advantages exist but they can only be exploited with concrete moves. No amount of weaknesses in your pawn structure will lead you to defeat if your opponent doesn't have concrete lines that take advantage of them
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-07-26T10:10:25.457Z
Comments.Text: @David: I agree with you in principle. But in practice you cannot really be correct. Consider that most chess players will find it easier to play White than Black, even though it seems that it is a draw with perfect play. I think that it makes sense to consider static evaluation not just as an approximation of a search, but also as a guide to which moves to make (to avoid positions that are harder to play). You have stated that (in your view) the SF static evaluation is wrong about the position being better for Black, but I am doubtful about that in the sense I have described (easier to play).
Comments.UserDisplayName: user21820
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-07-26T10:19:23.153Z
Comments.Text: *Cleveland* seems to have claimed that the main factor counter-balancing the material deficit for Black is that White has no open lines in order to get much out of the rooks. Incidentally, I am doubtful of that too. Some other threads I have seen on Chess SE about similar positional evaluations suggest an alternative reason, namely that it is difficult to use rooks without any minor pieces to help, because they cannot be used effectively to attack any pawn (e.g. RR attacking P protected by B/N actually loses material). I am looking for is expert opinion on why (or not) it is easier for White.
Comments.UserDisplayName: user21820
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-07-26T13:51:45.663Z
Comments.Text: White may have an advantage with two normal players, but I expect black to have the advantage for skilled players.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Ian Ringrose
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-07-26T14:06:38.353Z
Comments.Text: @IanRingrose: In my second-last comment I was talking about the starting position of chess, which we all believe to be a draw. Since you feel that Black has advantage in this position in my question, could you post an answer explaining what that is?
Comments.UserDisplayName: user21820
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-07-31T04:13:43.377Z
Comments.Text: @IanRingrose: There have been two detailed answers so far that express preference for White or at least belief that the position is quite equal. You and some upvoter of your comment believe otherwise. So I think you should explain your view, thanks!
Comments.UserDisplayName: user21820
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-07-31T04:55:28.797Z
Comments.Text: The last edit doesn't seem necessary or appropriate. OP has the right to use [British/International English terms](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/252503/are-british-international-english-terms-acceptable-e-g-brackets-instead-of) on this site, I believe.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Rishav Raj
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-07-31T14:26:04.597Z
Comments.Text: @RishavRaj: Thank you. (I too don't see why some want to attempt to enforce one dialect over another, when there is not even potential ambiguity in meaning.)
Comments.UserDisplayName: user21820
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-08-25T13:43:25.503Z
Comments.Text: @IanRingrose: I am unsure what to make of your comment now. Are you no longer sure of what you stated?
Comments.UserDisplayName: user21820
Tags: <analysis><stockfish><evaluation>
Title: Why does this quiet position with material in White's favour not favour White?
ThreadText: # Why does this quiet position with material in White's favour not favour White?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2024-07-26)
  
  I was experimenting with SF static evaluation and found that the following position is evaluated as slightly in favour of Black.
      [Title "White to move"]
      [FEN "3qkbnr/p1pp1ppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/R2QK2R w KQk - 0 1"]
  
  I do not understand why. Lichess things it is a draw, but my question is why the static evaluation favours Black since it looks to me like it favours White. Is there any reason for this, preferably a human explanation? It would be nice to get an explanation for how Black can hold despite having slightly less material, but that is probably too complicated, and I was curious to know in human terms why SF static evaluation actually favoured Black (even with no search).
  
  **Tags:** analysis, stockfish, evaluation
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Please note that static evaluation means pretty much nothing. Chess is a game of concrete lines rather than abstract concepts. "Human" explanations like ("but oh look at this open file") are just ad hoc justifications  
  > **username_0**: @username_1: I know enough about chess and programming to know that you are going to get absolutely nowhere if you only search lines and have no static evaluation other than win/draw/loss. SF works well because of its alpha-beta search plus fine-grained static evaluation plus heavy pruning.  
  > **username_1**: Just need oxygen to survive. That doesn't mean oxygen without water will get you good results though.  
  > **username_0**: @username_1: You are somewhat contradicting yourself... "means pretty much nothing" is very very far away from "is not absolutely necessary". A good static evaluation can greatly multiply the effective search depth (compared to one with none at all), so it isn't unreasonable to say that static evaluation can be a good approximation to a search. I don't see any problem with having ad-hoc justifications as long as they make enough sense; **all** imperfect heuristics are ad-hoc anyway, including quiescence search and pruning (which are absolutely necessary for reaching the kind of depth SF does).  
  > **username_1**: I think my point is pretty clear. Evaluation is meaningless without search. Search is meaningless without analysis. I think you're perfectly capable of understanding that.  
  > **username_0**: If that was your point, I don't disagree. But there must be a reason why the SF static evaluation has been fine-tuned this way, because it must perform well on the majority of cases. Either it is correct about this position being slightly better for Black, and so the question is why, or it is wrong about this position. Are you sure which it is? You can't just say there isn't such a thing as positional advantage; that is how all good chess players think besides tactics!  
  > **username_1**: The position isn't slightly better for Black, that's why after analysis SF doesn't think it is. Positional advantages exist but they can only be exploited with concrete moves. No amount of weaknesses in your pawn structure will lead you to defeat if your opponent doesn't have concrete lines that take advantage of them  
  > **username_0**: @username_1: I agree with you in principle. But in practice you cannot really be correct. Consider that most chess players will find it easier to play White than Black, even though it seems that it is a draw with perfect play. I think that it makes sense to consider static evaluation not just as an approximation of a search, but also as a guide to which moves to make (to avoid positions that are harder to play). You have stated that (in your view) the SF static evaluation is wrong about the position being better for Black, but I am doubtful about that in the sense I have described (easier to play).  
  > **username_0**: *username_5* seems to have claimed that the main factor counter-balancing the material deficit for Black is that White has no open lines in order to get much out of the rooks. Incidentally, I am doubtful of that too. Some other threads I have seen on Chess SE about similar positional evaluations suggest an alternative reason, namely that it is difficult to use rooks without any minor pieces to help, because they cannot be used effectively to attack any pawn (e.g. RR attacking P protected by B/N actually loses material). I am looking for is expert opinion on why (or not) it is easier for White.  
  > **username_2**: White may have an advantage with two normal players, but I expect black to have the advantage for skilled players.  
  > **username_0**: @IanRingrose: In my second-last comment I was talking about the starting position of chess, which we all believe to be a draw. Since you feel that Black has advantage in this position in my question, could you post an answer explaining what that is?  
  > **username_0**: @IanRingrose: There have been two detailed answers so far that express preference for White or at least belief that the position is quite equal. You and some upvoter of your comment believe otherwise. So I think you should explain your view, thanks!  
  > **username_3**: The last edit doesn't seem necessary or appropriate. OP has the right to use [British/International English terms](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/252503/are-british-international-english-terms-acceptable-e-g-brackets-instead-of) on this site, I believe.  
  > **username_0**: @RishavRaj: Thank you. (I too don't see why some want to attempt to enforce one dialect over another, when there is not even potential ambiguity in meaning.)  
  > **username_0**: @IanRingrose: I am unsure what to make of your comment now. Are you no longer sure of what you stated?  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2024-07-27. Score: 2
  
  Stockfish's static evaluation function tries to get a general sense of the position using predefined values for predefined tags. While the values and tags have been refined a lot over the years, when you have 10^120 variations, its accuracy would obviously suffer.
  Static evaluator is bound to make mistakes like declaring a position winning/losing but missing a narrow path to equality. This seems to be a similar case. When you look at multiple lines recommended by lichess, the top 5 are 0, -0.1, -0.1, -0.2, -0.3. So, the average assessment is favouring black, though not to the degree as static evaluator shows.
  To understand why static evaluator favours black we could look at the tags it uses and the values it assigns to those tags. Here's the graph visualisation of your position:
  
  Like you showed, it evaluates to -0.48. To compare how brittle this evaluation is without tree analysis, let's make one of white's most obvious moves - castling. The evaluation drops down to 0.09 and the new graph is as follows:
  
  [title "Position after castling"]
  [Fen "3qkbnr/p1pp1ppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/R2Q1RK1 b k - 1 1"]
  
  Tags responsible for the change in evaluation were Pqst bonus (increased since a rook on f1 is more valuable than the rook on h1), Mobility bonus (by design, king is considered to restrict rook's mobility, hence post castling the f1 rook is more mobile), Trapped rook (again, by design h1 and h8 rooks were trapped due to the king until white castled and escaped the trap) and Tempo (person with the turn gets some points).
  As players, we just don't have such computerish fragmented thinking. Moreover our evaluation is shaped by our experiences. Thus, trying to fit a universal explanation to stockfish's inaccurate static evaluation may not be the most fruitful exercise.
  Coming to the 2nd part of how black plays this position out, I honestly do believe picking either side has its pros and cons. I played out some practise games against stockfish with either colour and this is what I inferred.
  As black, you try to castle asap. White can actually pose serious threats to prevent black's development. Nf6 is met by e4 threatening e5. Bishop can't comfortably develop to c5 or b4. But if black manages to castle and hold white's pawn advance with appropriate pawn breaks, the 2 pieces for 1 are going to make their presence felt.
  As white you have a fairly simple plan. Push the pawns. Use them to restrict the bishop, as well as play for pawn promotion with those extra pawns.
  Even after all this analysis though, I can't say which side is better. I'd probably take white on shorter time control and against weaker players since I have some experience playing the Cochrane Gambit and since pawn storms are scary in shorter time controls. Note that Cochrane gambit has similar objectives for white (restrict the opponent and play for long term advantage).
  In longer time controls and against equal players, I'd take black since I'd have time to figure out the nuances. Against stronger players, I know I'd lose no matter which colour I choose (oh, it rhymes!).
  Had a fun time exploring this position, thanks for the question.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Thanks for your response. Yes I already know most of what you're saying, that's why I asked for a human explanation if there is one and it is humanly possible to grasp. I gather from your post that you feel there is no clear positional advantage for either side, and that it may be slightly harder for Black under time pressure. But you haven't addressed the plausible hypothesis I cited that Black may actually have an advantage because White's rooks cannot easily attack anything. Did you not face that problem when playing as White? By the way, what is your rating?  
  > **username_3**: Sure the rooks aren't active yet, but they'd eventually be.. I mean it's not like black has 8 pawns and can completely shut the position down. My rating? Never ask a women her age and a man his rating :P (btw SF lv6 and lv7). Here's a good sample line i got against lv 6 (1. O-O Ne7 2. e4 c6 3. d4 Ng6 4. Qg4 Bd6 5. e5 Bc7 6. f4 Qh4 7. Qf3 Ne7 8. g3 Qh3 9. f5 g6 10. fxg6 Nxg6 11. Qxf7+ Kd8 { White resigns. } 0-1).  
  > **username_3**: the questions as I understood them were (1). Why does the static evaluation favour black (2). If possible provide a human  explanation (3). If black can hold, how. I believe I tried to answer them to the best of my ability (though ideally, no. of questions should not be more than 1).  Always happy to discuss my answer, but please don't make accusations about not addressing the 4th thing that was discussed entirely in the comment section.  
  > **username_0**: I didn't intend to accuse. I just noticed that you didn't address the no-minor-piece issue, which I had brought up 16 hr before your answer. I didn't know that you had not read those comments either. As for your rating, I asked only because you said you would lose against stronger players... Your sample line has you playing which side? Thanks! (By the way, another user *IanRingrose* thinks that skilled players would prefer Black in this position. Those two aspects make me unable to be confident about your claim that it's very equal.)  
  > **username_3**: I'd read the comments, but addition of extra questions would make it [too broad](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/267058/how-to-handle-a-question-that-asks-many-things). Note: I never **claimed** that the position is equal (lichess did that). I gave my **subjective** assessment of the position. If you keep comparing people's subjective assessments, you'd never get a common answer. And if you wanted a subjective assessment by an IM/GM, you should've added that in the question (term 'expert' is arbitrary)  
  > **username_3**: I played white, black made a random blunder at the end, but the position before that is acceptable for white (in my assessment of course)  
  > **username_4**: how did you come up with those labels in the graph?  
  > **username_3**: I didn't. These labels have been hardcoded by stockfish for static evaluation. You can have a look for their values for any position [here](https://hxim.github.io/Stockfish-Evaluation-Guide/) (look for graph in the toolbar at top)  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2024-07-26. Score: 0
  
  The system of counting material points is a flawed abstraction and this is one of the situations where it breaks down. R+2 is generally only better than N+B in open endgames. In this position the rooks are not yet developed and will have trouble finding open lines, so the knight and bishop are preferable if anything.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: I know just counting material is a poor heuristic for static evaluation even in a quiet position, but can you confirm that open lines for the rook is really the main factor here? It sounds very reasonable, but I don't have expert-level understanding and that's what I seek. Thanks!  
  > **username_0**: That is to say, the best static evaluation function for SF (and for humans) would have material balance as the primary factor, so I just want to check that you think the main secondary factor that counter-balances that in this particular position is the lack of open lines for the rook for White.  
  > **username_0**: I think I cannot believe this answer, because [this position has an open line for White's rook but has even worse score](https://hxim.github.io/Stockfish-Evaluation-Guide/?p=3qkbnr%2Fp1pp1ppp%2F8%2F8%2F8%2F8%2FPPPPPPPP%2FR2QK2R%20w%20KQk%20-%200%201), and [a full SF search shows that Black's advantage is real](https://lichess.org/analysis/3qkbnr/p1pp1ppp/8/8/8/8/P1PPPPPP/R2QK2R_w_KQk_-_0_1).  
  > **username_6**: Rook do not always need open lines. They are often lifted (Rf1-h3-h3)  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2024-07-27. Score: 0
  
  If the evaluation changes by 0.57 after White makes one obvious move, that tells you one thing for sure. The computer is at sea here and has no idea what is going on. Mostly that is because nothing really is going on.
  
  In the regular initial position, all is symmetrical so the position will be judged equal regardless of whether any valid insights are built into the evaluator. Here the position is asymmetrical. Pluses and minuses have to be balanced in ways that are not obvious, especially if you let yourself be restricted to a static evaluation. White has pawns that are still flexible and can be used to control space, but to what end? I can see perhaps three possibilities.
  
  The first is to try and launch a K-side attack, but the K-side is not yet weakened in any way so there are no targets. Also, the major pieces usually need backup, as others have noted. (You have no minors to sacrifice!) The second is to open lines so as to expose weaknesses for the Rooks to attack but any weakness so created can likely be defended by a minor piece and will not be vulnerable. The third is expand slowly all across the board and try to run Black out of moves. Asking a master to choose between these may tell you more about the individual style of that master than about any objective concerning the position. The placement of the Pawns is such that White can easily create a passed Pawn but not a pair of them. For myself I would opt for number 3, reserving 1 and 2 as options if the opportunity presents itself.
  
  From the Black POV, I see little prospect of early aggression. I would be most concerned to find stable squares for my minor pieces. To find them I may have to wait until White shows their hand. For example, if they go for Pawns on f4, e5, d4, I might go for Pawns on f7, g6, h5, with Ne7 and Bh6.
  
  In practice, I think I would prefer White because it seems very hard for White to lose. They just build a solid Pawn structure as above, centralize all of their pieces and wait. What can go wrong? White seems to have more control over how the game develops. Turning this into a win would involve following the advice usually given for converting slightly superior positions. Don't rush, dont over-commit, stay flexible, be alert for oportunities.
  
  FWIW, my rating used to be about 2300 FIDE but that was before senility made me blunder-prone.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_3**: Interesting take. Just as a thought experiment, which side would you pick in a must win situation? Also, if forced to take black, would you play for a win or a draw?  
  > **username_6**: In a must-win situation I would take white. If forced to take Black I would feel helpless against an opponent content to draw  
  > **username_0**: You are correct that static evaluation is misleading if the obvious move changes it by a lot. But in this case, the so-called 'obvious move' that leads to a better static value by 0.57 is castling, but it's just a piece-square bonus that favours castled kings, and we can't just stop there if we want to understand how SF evaluates the position, since we have to let Black also develop otherwise we are unfairly giving White the benefit of the last move. After castling, and after Black develops the bishop, it goes back to −0.17, and 2 moves later it is −0.25. [cont]  
  > **username_0**: [cont] The point is not that these numbers are correct, but that just looking at what happens after one move doesn't convincingly explain why SF evaluates the starting position so unexpectedly. Since you say your rating used to be 2300, I'll just take it that you think it actually favours White, and that your approach would be a careful pawn expansion. Thanks! By the way I am not the downvoter..  
  > **username_7**: *The computer is at sea here and has no idea what is going on. Mostly that is because nothing really is going on* This is surely not the case; the computer has no idea what is going on because it isn't searching (static evaluation means "tell me what you think of this position without searching").  
  > **username_6**: @username_7 I agree that static evaluation avoids searching. But what else is there to do, apart from a point count? Nobody is threatening anything, Nobody has an outpost. Nobody controls an open line. No body has a plan (that I can see). I just don't find any way to apply conventional positional judgements with any confidence. No significant action haas happened or is about to happen. Material is "about equal" What is the poor computer to make of that?  
  
  ---
  
  