Introducing the Positional Influence Rating System (PIRS) – A Quantitative Framework for Chess Evalu

Hello Chess.com Community,

I’m excited to introduce the Positional Influence Rating System (PIRS), a novel, quantitative framework for evaluating chess positions. PIRS is designed to bridge the gap between human intuition and engine-like precision by breaking down positional dynamics into measurable metrics.

 
What is PIRS?
PIRS is a structured system that evaluates chess positions using quantifiable metrics such as:

Piece Mobility: The number of squares a piece can move to or control.
Square Control: The number of pieces attacking or defending a specific square.
Central Control: The degree of control over central squares (e4, d4, e5, d5).
Safeguard Score: The degree of protection for a piece or square (defenders - attackers).
Attack Scope: The number of opponent pieces or squares a piece is attacking.
Defense Quotient: The number of squares or pieces a piece is defending.
King Safety: A measure of how well-protected the king is (defenders - attackers).
Pawn Structure: The quality of a player’s pawn structure, measured by counting weak pawns (isolated, doubled, or backward).
Tactical Awareness: The number of hanging pieces (undefended pieces that can be captured for free).
Sacrifice Element: An evaluation of whether a sacrifice is justified (benefits - material cost).
These metrics are combined to provide an overall positional evaluation, helping players identify strengths, weaknesses, and strategic opportunities.

 
Why PIRS?
While engines like Stockfish excel at calculation, they often struggle to explain why a move is good from a positional perspective. PIRS addresses this gap by focusing on positional understanding and providing a human-friendly framework for evaluation.

Key Advantages of PIRS:
Human-Centric: PIRS translates complex positional concepts into simple, measurable metrics that players can understand and apply.
Structured Framework: Unlike traditional methods that rely on intuition, PIRS offers a systematic way to assess positions.
Customizable: Players can adjust the weights of different metrics based on their playing style or the specific demands of a position.
 
How to Use PIRS
Here are some practical examples of how PIRS can be applied:

Example 1: Evaluating Piece Mobility
In the starting position, a knight on b1 has a Piece Mobility of 2 (it can move to a3 and c3).
After moving the pawn to e4, the knight’s mobility increases to 4 (a3, c3, d2, and f2).
Example 2: Assessing Square Control
The square e4 is controlled by White’s pawn on d2 and knight on f3. If Black has a pawn on e5 and a knight on f6, the Square Control for e4 is 2 (White) - 2 (Black) = 0.
Example 3: Calculating King Safety
A king castled on g1 with pawns on f2, g2, and h2 has a King Safety score of 3 (defended by three pawns). If Black has a bishop on g4 and a queen on h5, the score drops to 3 (defenders) - 2 (attackers) = 1.
 
Call to Action
I’d love to hear your thoughts on PIRS! Whether you’re a player, coach, or developer, your feedback and ideas are invaluable. Let’s discuss:

How can PIRS be improved or expanded?
What challenges do you face in evaluating positions, and how can PIRS help?
Would you be interested in collaborating on PIRS-related projects?
 
Future Plans
My vision for PIRS is to make it a go-to resource for players looking to improve their positional understanding. In the near future, I plan to:

Develop training materials and exercises based on PIRS.
Explore software integration for real-time analysis.
Build a community of PIRS enthusiasts who can share insights and strategies.
 
Technical Appendix
For those interested in the technical details, here’s a brief overview of how PIRS works:

1. Piece Mobility
Formula: mobility = number of legal moves for the piece.
Example: A knight in the center of the board typically has higher mobility than a knight on the edge.
2. Square Control
Formula: control = number of attackers - number of defenders.
Example: A square controlled by multiple pieces is strategically important.
3. Central Control
Formula: central_control = number of central squares controlled by the player.
Example: A player with a strong pawn center has high central control.
4. Safeguard Score
Formula: safeguard_score = number of defenders - number of attackers.
Example: A well-protected piece has a high Safeguard Score.
5. Attack Scope
Formula: attack_scope = number of attacked squares or pieces.
Example: A bishop on an open diagonal has a high Attack Scope.
6. Defense Quotient
Formula: defense_quotient = number of defended squares or pieces.
Example: A knight defending multiple pawns has a high Defense Quotient.
7. King Safety
Formula: king_safety = number of defenders - number of attackers.
Example: A king behind a solid pawn shield has high King Safety.
8. Pawn Structure
Formula: weak_pawns = number of isolated, doubled, or backward pawns.
Example: A player with no weak pawns has a strong pawn structure.
9. Tactical Awareness
Formula: hanging_pieces = number of undefended pieces.
Example: A player with no hanging pieces has good Tactical Awareness.
10. Sacrifice Element
Formula: sacrifice_score = benefits (., piece activity, king safety) - material_cost.
Example: A sacrifice leading to a winning attack has a positive Sacrifice Element score.
 
Conclusion
PIRS is a novel and powerful framework that has the potential to revolutionize how humans approach chess. While it may not single-handedly defeat engines, it can help players compete more effectively by focusing on areas where humans excel. By combining the strengths of human intuition and creativity with the structured evaluation provided by PIRS, players can unlock new levels of understanding and performance.

Best regards,
fischers_bane

Very interesting stuff, though I see it being extremely difficult for a human to draw much use from it beyond what we'd obviously gather from a position without the complex calculations (Ie I'm playing the advanced french as white, ergo i have PIRS advantage because i have more space, more mobility etc.) Also I can see confounding variables arising for a miss-weighing of variable importance. I could see this maybe having an application for computers but is too complex for humans since there's too many variables that can't be restricted to a formula and weighed correctly. Though I also think engines like leela will always be better positionally since it rids the preconceived notions of material value, inherent pawn structure etc

Any coach worth his salt would put forth a serious effort to investigate and test new theories. The fact that you automatically assume there is zero chance for mankind to compete better against the engines represents the Stockholm Syndrome effect. A slave to your master even though someone is here to show you a better way to exist. Since i'm one of the rare birds that checkmated Stockfish 4 in 8 moves should tell you something, no?

Why do you think Magnus Carlsen stared at his feet during the Joe Rogan Experience? Terrified he would have to answer the question: "who has the balls to challenge the chess engines?" "Sorry Joe, not I. We haven't even bothered to try a new approach."

You asked for feedback and I gave you my thoughts. It wasn't an attack on you. I said what the pros and cons were and you took it horrifically. You don't have to accept my constructive criticism, but don't assume I'm acting in bad faith and resort to condescending remarks like "any coach worth his salt" or strawmen saying that I'm not open to investigating new theories or saying I automatically assume there's 0 chance of mankind to compete better against engines (I never said anything like either of those remarks).

i am an idiot to think i would get any support from the chess player community go luck with your coaching

Wow. I literally told you what it was good at and what it could work on... You know, the feedback you asked for. If you wanted people to blindly praise you and offer no pushback to improve, then don't ask for feedback. I'm sorry, but this a ridiculous response to constructive criticism.