Any tips about evaluating a position?

Hi!, not a deep thing like a chess engine could do, rather my problem is this:

* "I can't know in a determined position, WHO has the advantage" *

Seems inexcusable but it's now one of my bigger "stop" signs. =/

Sometimes I offer draws (or give up) to games where I had a tremendous advantage and sometimes I refuse to give up in ones where there's nothing left to fight for. (except an opponent big error/mistake). 

I know "practice" will sharpen my vision in this sense but I'm more inclined in asking how do YOU, people, do it?

=)

Divide the board:

Queenside: a-c files.

Center: d-e files.

Kingside: f-h files.  

For each part of the board look at the 3 following things:

Space: advanced pawns increase space.

Material: how many pieces do you have on each part of the board?  What part of the board are they pointing at?

Weaknesses: weak squares, weak pawns, isloated pawns, doubled pawn, backward pawns.

Decide on what part of the board your strongest (Game Plan)

Center control has the added advantage of flexibility.  Control of the center allows you to attack on either the center, and the king, or queenside.  

Some possibilities:

Python Strategy by Tigran Petrosian

http://sagarteacheschess.blogspot.com/2015/09/python-strategy-book-review.html

Petrosian’s Legacy by Tigran Petrosian (1990)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708103409/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review309.pdf

Petrosian: Move by Move by Thomas Engqvist

"Engqvist gives us a rare treat and a genuine, sympathetic understanding of one of chess' greats who nowadays tends to gets lost in the shuffle!" - Michael Ciamarra (2014)

Grandmaster Chess Strategy by Jürgen Kaufeld & Guido Kern

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708093410/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review812.pdf

Honestly, correctly evaluating positions is one of the hardest skills to get in chess.  When I was about 1600, I evaluated every position as better for either my opponent or myself.  I had no concept of equality, of an equal position.  Less than 5% of my games ended in draws.

A big part of getting better is understanding what it means to be better, and relatedly, what it means to be equal.  I still struggle here, but I'm learning.  At the risk of oversimplifcation, a position can be divided into temporary factors (a lead in development, uncastled king, more coordination, etc) and long-term positional factors (pawn structure, weaknesses, superior minor piece, etc).

If neither side has a temporary or long-term advantage, than the game is equal.  If you have one advantage, then you have a small to medium advantage in that position.  If you have several such advantages, then you are close to winning.

The type of advantage you have also determines how you should play.  If you only have short-term advantages (lead in development against an uncastled king, say), then you need to play very quickly.  If your opponent castles and catches up in development, then your advantage disappears.  Conversely, if you have many stable long-term advantages, then you can play slowly and safely, knowing that your advantage will not disappear.

This is a simplification.  There are so many factors, and often one is far more important than an other.  How many times has a GM willingly accepted weak pawns only to get a crushing attack a short while later?  Things get even more complicated when you consider sacrifices.  Is a huge lead in development worth a pawn?  A piece?  A Queen?  Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  Each position is different.

tl: dr; All other things being equal, the side with better pieces and better pawn structure has the advantage.  If neither side has an advantage in these areas, it's equal.  If one side has better pieces while the other has better pawn structure, that's where it comes down to judgement.

As a final thought, it's always easier to play with the initiative than to defend.  The initiative is often more important than a pawn weakness, assuming you keep the initiative.  When in doubt, the side with the initiative has the advantage.