Clear advantage or a clear advantage?

On the properties of the advantage

When one side is superior to the other in our assessment of a position, we say that side has an 'advantage'. For the purposes of this post, I want to refer to two properties of the advantage:

- its 'magnitude' (how big the advantage is), and
- its clarity.

We have an idea about what the magnitude of an advantage means, even more so now that we have analysis engines that give us numerical values to define it, generally based on the equivalence of a pawn to a point. However, clarity is not so easy to define. We could say that an advantage is clearer the more null are the factors of the position that do not constitute it - that is, the more isolated it is. See the following example:

White's advantage is not that great (Stockfish at depth 22 gives +1.0) but it is very clear: they have the bishop pair in an open position against the knight pair. We consider it clear because there are no other factors of difference in the position, practically the only thing different between the white and black positions (removing white's turn) is the advantage of the pair of bishops vs. knights. As an example, we can imagine another position, this time with an unclear but large advantage:

Due to worse king safety, better placement of the pieces and having the initiative, White is better; Stockfish at depth 22 gives +6.2 playing exf7). However, there are other differences in the position, which make the advantage less clear: Black has a free defended pawn on 'd4', there is opposite side castling, Black's position is perhaps a bit more compact, and White's knight in 'd5' is unstable. Going back to Capablanca, the 'simplification' technique as a winning method consists precisely in making an advantage clearer through the elimination of other factors of the position.

The advantage put into practice

The expression 'clear advantage' appears in the chess dictionary, signified by the symbol '+-'. This is used to indicate a decisive advantage, and is sometimes equated to an engine rating greater than 1.7 or some number close to it. However, we can say that this terminology is confusing if we apply the previous definitions, since an advantage of great magnitude may not be clear.

Bringing these ideas into game situations makes things a bit more complex, as someone in game (hopefully) doesn't have an engine to assess the magnitude of their advantage. Suppose an imaginary player is presented with the bishops vs. knights ending that we have seen before. This player could well tell us: 'I know that the advantage here is clear, but since I don't know how to play these endgames, the magnitude of the advantage would be almost null'. Another player might not be aware of the advantage of the bishop pair in an open position, and would then think that the position is completely equal.

Gaining awareness of what types of advantages are 'clear' for our playstyle and abilities is an important step forward that can boost our results.