How do you get 1 or 1/2 point for control over the center

Hi Everybody,

Refering to document named ICS-positional-evaluation of month 1, under 4.1. The control over the centre
on page 5.

It reads

The evaluation will be made by checking what squares are controlled by a player, what
squares are controlled by the other player and what squares are controlled by both players
(or by none of them). On the squares controlled by both players a tense fight is usually
given. The result of this evaluation will return a score as: 2-2 (the centre is equally
controlled), 2.5-1.5, 3-1, 3.5-0.5 or 4-0.

My question is how do you count 1 point or 1/2 point for center control?

Thanks

For each of the four centre squares count up the white and black pawns and pieces attacking the square.

Score a full point to the color having more attackers and zero for the opposing color, and if attackers are equal for both players score 1/2 point for both sides. (For example, suppose neither player is attacking a square, then the square will evaluate to 1/2 - 1/2).

The sum of the scores for both players should always equal 4 and the sum of each square should be 1.

I do have doubt when

suppose I have a queen controlling the d4 square but my opponent has a pawn to control that square.....it seems he has better control because he controls with pawn. Shall it still be 1/2 - 1/2 for that square?

You're correct, if you are going to lose material you don't control the square.

Also, I was just going over a video (year 2 video 10) and they described a position and counted occupied but uncontested squares as point.

Actually, it's more complicated...

Let say my opponent control the d4 square with a pawn and I control it with bishop and knight.....how should points be given for that square?

There's a detailed discussion here:

http://www.chess-game-strategies.com/control-of-the-center.html

I'd say if you cannot occupy the square without losing material you don't control it.

Thanks PawnCustodian

Bumping this topic. I can't see how having a superiority of forces concentrated on a center square (or any square) gives you control of that square. If your opponent is protecting that square with a pawn and your only options to occupy that square are minor or major pieces, then you're not going to occupy that square because you'd lose the exchange (of piece for pawn).

Yet in one sense you do "control" that square, because you could end up with a piece there, but of course you'd better have gotten compensation for the lost exchange(s).

So, the question of who has control of a square can be easily answered, but practical control of a square is a different matter. If there is no obvious compensation for a lost exchange, then the player with lesser forces protecting that square could theoretically (practically) control it. But, there might be more than fair compensation for sacrificing the exchange, so that same opponent's "practical control" will cease to exist.

If you have more pieces on a square but the opponent covers the square with a pawn and you cannot push a pawn to that square, then you do NOT control the square. It is contested. You can sac something for the pawn and then occupy the square but that's another story.

BorgQueen wrote:If you have more pieces on a square but the opponent covers the square with a pawn and you cannot push a pawn to that square, then you do NOT control the square.  It is contested.  You can sac something for the pawn and then occupy the square but that's another story.

I looked up this topic as I was figuring out a position for my own purposes. Hence the necroposting

About contested squares in the case above where no pawn can contest this occupying pawn, would it be only contested if said pawn is protected by (a) piece(s) only? If it were defended by a pawn, then it doesn't seem a contested square to me. Nothing can threaten it unless the opponent is up for a sacrifice.

About contested squares in the case above where no pawn can contest this occupying pawn

In the scenario described, the square in question is empty. It is contested because if the opponent puts a piece on the square, it can be captured, twice, winning the pawn that defends the square.

Ow, I was too distracted to read the full context as I was in the middle of a study and quickly had this question lol. Thanks for helping though.