Evaluation priority

Whenever you play a typical middlegame position, that is, not in the middle of an exchange or a tactical blow, in which order do you proceed with the evaluation or these elements ?

For sake of simplicity, you can use the two letters codes given.

• Unprotected piece (UP)
• Double attack (DA) and tactical motifs
• Forcing moves (FM)
• Pawn structure (PS)
• Piece coordination (PC)
• King safety (KS)

I don't use this method of evaluation or anything similar, and in my experience most strong players do not either.
The issue with this method is that it's unnatural to use, and ultimately may not help you find the next move you have to make.

Typically, for tactical motifs and weaknesses, those should be tracked turn by turn - for example, when you see potential tactical ideas (tension, potential forcing ideas, hanging pieces etc), you should take note of them and keep track of them turn by turn. So you're never just looking at a position and searching for all tactical motifs - instead, every time a move is played, you should subconsciously be updating the tactical ideas you're keeping track of. And this easy because one move often does not change the position much.

For a lot positional ideas, most good players know from experience the standard plans and ideas. For example, in opposite-sides castling, it's natural to launch an attack against the king. When there's a locked center, it's better to advance on the side where you have more space. For example, in the KID, white often does a pawn storm on the QSide, whereas black proceeds on the KSide. This isn't due to some evaluation - it's just the standard plan that is well known. Understanding the structures that come out of various openings helps to understand what plan/move to proceed with in most middlegame structures.

When there are multiple positional ideas or potential plans, it is helpful also to play some moves in your head, and calculate the result of carrying out those plans, to get a rough feel for what might work and what might not. For example, if the opponent can easily defend their weakened king from any attempt at your attack, perhaps it's better to attack a weak pawn, etc.
A concrete approach, rather than just static evaluation, is necessary in order to understand the position.

You should read Dorfman's 'The Method in Chess', a classic that GMs like Gustafsson and Svidler refer to in their commentary. Dorfman uses 4 points to assess the static features in a position:

1. King safety
2. Material superiority
3. Impact of a queen trade
4. Pawn structure

King safety is obviously first as checkmate ends the game. Similarly, material advantage without compensation will usually win. The last two points are more subtle and ask who will be better in the endgame and whether the pawns and pieces are coordinated and working together.

Thank you for the replies.

@lizani I'll definately give a look a The Method in Chess, really interesting (and advanced).

@crtex You are right about not locking oneself into a rigid thinking sequence.

Nonetheless, stay with a simplified question : about what do you think first : tactic or strategy ? I know it depends on the position a lot but I would like to know the right order.

@cmboivin said in #4:

Nonetheless, stay with a simplified question : about what do you think first : tactic or strategy ? I know it depends on the position a lot but I would like to know the right order.

In general, you should consider forcing, attacking moves first, that could potentially exploit a tactic. These are the strongest potential moves in a position. Then, you should consider less powerful options that can advance your plan, based on your positional understanding.

However, you should always consider your opponents responses to your moves, and that involves some level of calculation and tactical awareness. So you can never really separate tactics and strategy.

I'm not very strong, but if I reflect on how I do it:

1- King safety
2- Pawn structure
3- Who wins the endgames (and which endgames)
4- Potential for dynamism (which also includes the possibilities to force a transition into specific engames)

It's probably not great, I'm not a strong player. I'd be curious for some constructive criticism though.