How do you evaluate chess positions?

Title says it all

Experience. You’re welcome.

Plus: Calculating helps to explore the positional factors.

First look at those positions.

Different method can be used.

One I like is to spell the differences between your position and your opponent's position. You will find imbalances, weak squares, strong outpost ...

So the first part is to me is to analyze to find this imbalances ...

The second part is to formulate a plan, how can I utilize my position, my strengths. Must I play like a goldfish on my strength ? Must I counter a bit my opponent ? What is the plan of my opponent ... ? The second part to me is to evaluate the possibilities you have.

The third part is to assess. Among those possibilities what is my choice. Here you begin to switch on the tactic brain and calculate

Fourth part ok I play

Evaluate a position is only a piece into the process of playing. We can debate technical term of where evaluate begin or end but the process of thinking need to evaluate a position. Especially when you need to find a plan. So perhaps my definition will be to evaluate is to use a method to find a suitable plan.

When you already know the theory, the position, you have a standard plan in your head I think it is more important to be focused on tactics.

Ps: It is hard to anwser your question but I hope you can get something of my explanation

1. Material difference

2. King Safety

3. Piece Activity

4. Space Advantage/Pawn structure

So you look at the king safety and material and evaluate based on that but if it is equal then other factors are even more importants such as : controlling the center, activity, pawn structure, space advantage, open lines and initiative and after you take all that into consideration you evaluate the position if you are better, worse or equal.

1. count the pieces.
2. Is he threatening something?
3. King position. Has a direct mate attack success? Are there any other direct tactics (and are these not dumb pawn grabs)?
4. pawn structure
5. good/bad pieces
6. go through valid moves, choose all which play together with ideas found in 1) to 5). These are the move candidates.
7. choose the best from the move candidates by pretending to calculate variations.
8. before you play it, ask yourself: "what would I answer to it when I was my opp?"
9. play the gut move you anyway wanted to play in first instance
10. notice that you just dropped your queen and resign

Proceed like this, but avoid 9) and 10).

Addon, do this, no matter which player to move, aka, calculate on your opponents time.

These are the elements that Steinitz identified and Lasker formalized:

Permanent Advantages:

1. Material advantage
2. Bad king position
3. Passed pawns in the middlegame
4. Weak pawns for the opponent
5. Strong and weak squares
6. Pawn islands
7. Strong pawn center
8. Control of a diagonal
9. Control of a file
10. Bishop pair
11. Control of a rank

Temporary Advantages:
12. Bad piece position
13. Inharmoniously placed pieces
14. Advantage in development
15. Concentration of pieces in the center
16. Space advantage

What makes chess almost infinitely difficult is trying to figure out which of these are most important in any given position, something that chess savants seem to intuit and strong players figure out quickly, and of course all of them might be irrelevant if there are direct tactical considerations. Books on chess strategy go through these chapter by chapter with examples, and you need to start thinking through them explicitly in your own games in each position until they come to you faster and faster and eventually automatically. It's one of the reasons playing longer time controls is important for improving.

Actually, title says not much of anything.