Hey, gang! I see a lot of threads from novice players wishing to improve. So, I jotted down a few good ideas in an article and had it published on the Net. Lemme know what ya think!

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2318524/chess_improvement_for_the_beginner.html?cat=11 

Very well written!

Unfortunately dead wrong.

Seems pretty solid general advice. The article is overly brief, but if you would say its "dead wrong" I think you need to go into a little bit more detail.

"Develop every piece before attacking" - misinformation.

Well you certainly don't want to do a premature attack unless it has a tactical justification. But "every" is a bit much. Morphy didn't often need his queen rook much for attacks!

Right, and that is a good point.  However, if a complete novice gets USED to attacking only with two pieces, it is bound to form a very bad habit. We must learn the rules before we can break them correctly, yes? 

Thanks for the input, gang! I probably should have reworded "every piece", but the point is valid, I guess. 

That has a tactical justification as it has serious threats. But in other positions Ng5 lets say backed by a light squared bishop against a castle king (to make it two pieces) when there's a knight on f6 won't be so effective and could end up losing time to ...h6 instead.

In that case there is no opportunity to attack. If you see a real threat you have to take advantage of it. Waiting to develop your queens knight and put your kings rook on E1 isn't going to do anything.

Well we all agree on that. I don't see where your issue is. Every principle is subject to being broken if a strong attack presents itself...

Every principle is also subject to being broken in about every chess opening there is.

Don't move the same piece too many times in the opening - BROKEN, by black in the Alekhines defense. BROKEN, by white in the Closed Ruy Lopez.

Don't make multiple pawn moves before developing your pieces - BROKEN, by white in the Alekhines defense.  BROKEN, by black in the sicilian Najdorf.

Telling people to develop all of their pieces into the centre, castle and then attack while not making many pawn moves is totally incorrect. Sometimes your pieces shouldn't be in the centre, sometimes your pieces need to be developed in a specific way instead of all mindlessly sitting somewhere near the centre.

A much better approach is to decide on a plan, say an f2-f4 advance and then develop your pieces around that.

Look out Kupov! DUCK! The cannons of chess pedgogical orthodoxy are being trundled out and aimed your way, even now. We'll, I'm with you, but don't go too crazy please.

Yes, sometimes your pieces shouldn't be in the center, but it's always extremely important to consider it, and well, it's just very likely that you want your pieces centralized. You only decentralize when you think you can pull of a successfull attack. But chess principles don't teach chess strategy which is why only beginners need to cling on to them sometimes as otherwise their decentralizing moves will be awful (as many are) while the GM's would be good. There are very few exceptions to countterattacking in the center against one on a wing, unless the plan is too slow or too difficult in the position. But yes, it's better to develop your pieces with a plan in mind if you have one.

So here we go with discussing principles again, but I don't think JG27Pyth realizes that if he wasn't taught principles he wouldn't understand the importance of development. The thing is, development is often extremely important but because it's known so well knowledge of the power of development is taken for granted. To people who never leanred the principles, learning about development could be as deep as learning the minority attack or something. So although I think they are important to have in your head (as well as keeping an open mind), as I have said they are very far from teaching deep chess strategy.

Development obviously isn't only important because "principles say it is". Every player would learn that developing is often a good choice simply from experience.

Well, maybe after some bad losses, but being told it is a shortcut. Not that you should be lazy when playing and just blindly follow them, no, but you might as well give a beginner these guidelines and tell him they're not always right. Then it's his fault if he plays only according to rules.

I mean you probably could learn chess without principles, but I don't think it's the most efficient way to. Just like how it's easier to grasp hypermodern chess after first learning classical chess, which gives a more basic picture of the strength of the center. The rules just have to be used intelligently, but they are certainly right often.

For example, once you know development is important you can move on to when it isn't, and then the amateur learns that if he can keep the center from opening up, then the development won't be so important but if it does open then it could be devastating. I'm sure that's how you and me learned that, too.

they're general rules for beginners. Horses for courses.

No beginner should be playing Alekhines defense or trying to do anything too fancy.

100%.  The article isn't aimed at experts.  It is supposed to aid in developing good habits. :)

I disagree with the rationale behind the idea one can skip healthy development in favor of immediate gains.

Unless you are completely sure of what you are doing, stick to the time proven development principles.

GM Dzindzichashvili has an excellent video on this: http://www.chess.com/video/player/no-exceptions

After watching the video, I decided to put GM Dzindzichashvili's arguments to a test, and played a series of blitz games on FICS. The result was astonishing:

- On absolutely all the games, my opponents neglected sound development principles in favor of minor immediate gains. (So it seems the exception has become the rule, and this proves Dzindzichashvili's point.)

- On one of the games, my opponent clearly knew his opening, but I didn't. So I just played natural development moves. Eventually when we stepped out of the known line, my opponent became uncertain of what to do, and decided on a premature attack (i.e. also neglected sound development principles).

- On 8 games, I won 6. (2 wins against inferior rated players, 4 wins against superior rated players, 2 losses against superior rated players).

- The two games I lost, I lost them because I made tactic blunders.

Oh, MAN!  You are brilliant!  I *LOVE* when players hear advice from a strong titled player and actually put it to use. You, sir, deserve a chess medal.

YES! It is possible that an attack exists on move four!  YES, it is possible that playing for Legal's mate or some other oddity can win games!  And YES, quick mates are very attractive to the amateur player!

However, go through a database of GM games and try to find premature attacks, or crazy games where no pieces are developed for 20 moves.  VERY few. Development is a wonderful habit to get into.  Players can look for the cheap and quick KO moves when they are 1500+. 

In the beginning, play a complete game.  We must walk before we can run!