Books on Evaluating Positions

@jesgluckner If everyone has that talent then anyone become world champion. And I think it's safe to say that that's a bullshit claim

@TGBM
it's a claim i never made

i quoted Polgar to saying any healthy child can become GM

the difference between GM and WC is bigger than from FM to GM

if not everyone has the talent, then we would see a certain pattern in average GMs
they would have to come from a certain type of family with "better" genetics
yet the average GM comes from poor, rich, stupid and smart families, from ones that never touched a chess set and from ones that live chess

"The Method in Chess" - Dorfman

Dan Heisman has a book
www.amazon.com/Elements-Positional-Evaluation-Pieces-Their/dp/1888690585

it goes bit deep on theretical foundations. Like space is handy proxy for mobility not real factor it self. Which is obvioys when you think about. Not sure reading about evaluation positions is gonna helpt too much. Balancing different factors tend to be art not science. It easy enought o say black has extra pawn and white has some activity and space for it. But is ans will not be a formula telling how say is that good or bad. with tons of experiece you might learn to feel it.

@TGBM Never have I heard more nonsense in my entire life. As Kasparov himself says "hard work is a talent".
I always imagine that being told all your achievements and successes are down to some magical talent is one of the most insulting things you can say to someone.
Especially to someone who has dedicated their entire life to some pursuit.
Dedicating someone else's success to their inate talent is a cop out usually by people who are afraid of putting in the hard work and want to justify why some people in the world are better than they are.. Because they work far harder than you ever will...
You can out work talent, you're just too lazy to try!

Not really related to evaluation but Kasparov in expert in chess not areas related to research related talent and learnign. There is limit for everyon somewhere and those limits are not equal. Hard work can substitute innate abilities to a degree but there will be a limit. For instance working memory is to a high degree heridabel (se f.ex pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21795540/) and can trained to some degree. and calculating chess variations is dependent on that. Intelligence is of high heridability and has clear link to chess success www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160913124722.htm#:~:text=The%20study%20found%20that%20intelligence,at%20lower%20levels%20of%20skill.&text=%22Imagine%20that%20a%20genius%20can,average%20intelligence%20may%20take%20longer.
But hard work does compensate. Still very unlikely that someone with IQ 100 coudl become a word champion
herculeschess.com/do-chess-players-have-high-iq/
that is no verified source but Kasparov has innate skill of being really intelligent. His iq test was made in eighties for german magazine so that is verifiable.

@petri999 great points raised, and I have to agree if you just don't have the capability to remember certain positions then you won't reach the pinnacle, (or if you are unfortunate sufferer of anphantasia I imagine that would also hamper your pursuits of the world title), but should we regard being WC as the only form of success?
Too often I hear, in everyday life, he or she is good because of this talent or that talent when at certain levels it is just irrelevant. I agree that at the highest level certain characteristics have to separate the great from the greatest but there are a multitude of these characteristics and we cannot just describe them as chess talent. (memory, logic, nerves of steel, singular focus to the point of addiction/obsession) all of these things would never normally be described as a talent in normal life yet if someone utilises them while playing chess, all of a sudden they are naturally gifted at chess?
I also cannot agree with user @TGBM and his view on learning how to evaluate positions. If he can't do it or learn to do it, it's due to his dismissive and misplaced beliefs in hard work and talent and because of that he may never learn or attempt to learn how to do it.
I hope I don't come across as too narrow minded either, I do think there is great room for debate on this topic particularly but perhaps on a different thread?
In an attempt to get back on topic I would like to recommend the the first Yusopov book, Build up your Chess - particularly
Chapter 6 - value of the pieces
Chapter 8 - centralizing the pieces
Chapter 13 - realizing a material advantage
Chapter 14 - Open files and outposts
Chapter 22- The wrong Bishop

The entire book is gold but those chapters will definitely help you in how you evaluate and think in certain positions.

Thanks so much to everyone. This is a great discussion. I hope it can continue. I have been checking out the various references and am trying to create a checklist that I can use as a basis to review positions in books and post game.