Reasons to Prioritize Piece Development in Bughouse

It's universally accepted in standard chess that piece development is important, and that neglecting it leads to indefensible or hard to defend positions. The chaotic nature of bughouse means that it is less obviously true that there is a need to develop pieces. So this is going to be a fairly opinionated post about why it's important. Whenever I observe games, the most common diagnosis of any loss is related to speed. I myself very rarely find any partner to be so slow that it's impossible to work with them. (Except for the people who are afk. That will really slow you down.) For me, games are most unwinnable when one player does not move any of their pieces, and instead tries to rely almost entirely on piece flow from the other board. 

Reason #1 Developing pieces gives you more pieces to work with. 

Each player starts with seven pieces. If you and your opponent receive an equal number of droppers, then whoever is able to use more of their own pieces will have more pieces to work with in total. It's not really realistic to do much with both Rooks every game. But more often than not, you can use both Knights and both Bishops. I'd say a player who has moved all of their minor pieces is reasonably developed, and a player who has moved all of their pieces is optimally developed. 

Reason #2 Developing pieces gives you a more durable position and increases your King safety. 

There are many games where someone is attacking, and when the attack is over, the counterattack is unstoppable. Very often, the cause is an undeveloped Queenside. The pieces on the Queenside are not developed, and so the Queen's Rook does not contribute to the defense. This means that Rooks and Queens can be dropped all over your position. 

Reason #3 Developing pieces makes sense if you don't know what flow is coming from your partner, and if you don't know what flow is needed by your partner. 

Even if you know your partner's playstyle, it's not always possible to know what the opponent's team will do. Development facilitates flexibility. If you need to hold pieces, it's easier to do if you control the center. If you need to get pieces, it's also easier.

Reason #4 Developing pieces creates larger windows for attacks, and smaller windows for danger.

There are some decent or strong players who play the exact same lines with both colors. These lines are effective if they get certain pieces at certain times. Some players make one pawn move and then try to start an attack with a single Knight. It's true that this is good with a perfectly timed Queen and Knight trade. But here's the rub. A Queen and Knight is impossible to reliably force. But when the lone Knight attack dissipates, that player's position is vulnerable for longer periods, and it is vulnerable to what might be called ordinary piece flow. Some 2100-ish "sac-sitting" players think they want high flow, but when they get it at the wrong time, they are in no great position. The ideal should be able to do something constructive with many pieces or a few pieces. 

Reason #5 Developing pieces makes weaker players easier to work with. (And not developing pieces makes stronger players harder to work with).

Would you rather partner an 1800 who makes a few inaccurate moves, or a 2200 who plays perfectly with pieces you probably can't get? In my experience, it's far easier to work with someone who develops and drops pieces than someone who drops pieces are maybe sometimes develops pieces. 

Feeding is hard. When you are busted without pieces, your partner now has to play moves that are accurate with respect to their own position, but now with respect to yours. That's somewhat true of bughouse in general, but here it is extra pressure. Feeding is also harder when you have fewer droppers, because the droppers can be used to force pieces in all sorts of ways. Often development-neglecting players urge you trade but they have given you almost nothing to get the trades with. 

Every position in bughouse is unique, and it would be silly to choose a move that develops over one that tactically crushes your opponent. Is there anything that can be said in response to all of the above? 

Responses usually come in three varieties. Some people don't want any tips about how to play bughouse, because they're just playing for fun. But bughouse is more fun, the more you understand. Some players suggest that their own non-developing style is not the problem, but that the slowness of their partner is. I don't find this persuasive, because it's not a matter of getting development-neglecting players flow quickly, but at the exact right time, because the window of opportunity on their board is so small. Speed doesn't really help.

I can imagine one strictly positional counterarguments to the things I've said. So what if my pieces are on the back rank? That means my opponent cannot capture them, and it means fewer droppers for them. The problem with this is that the development-neglecting player becomes more and more dependent on piece flow, and those pieces get sent back around faster and faster. 

I've written this because the 'meta' in bughouse does not seem to include development very much at all. There's a surprising (to me) lack of discussion about development in bughouse. One strong player even said to me "development is just a you thing", but I find this hard to accept. Many of the games I observe are mud-slinging matches, both in terms of the moves and the commentary after the games. Chess coaches who are unfamiliar with bughouse think that it ruins a person's standard chess. In practice it might, but it doesn't have to. Bughouse is actually quite close to standard chess--even closer than crazyhouse. It's very odd that even some NMs, FMs, and IMs disregard what they in all likelihood insist on from their students. (Grandmasters tend not to sac-sit, but I have found that they do tend to underestimate the danger to their King.) 

Why do players sac-sit? There are some strong players (like GM Abykhovsky or MysteryShuttler) whom I find myself sac-sitting against. In these cases, I have the sense that if I am not attacking, they will crush me. Sac-sitting usually speeds up the losses. It's better to address the underlying problems than to lash out. 

If there's anything wrong with the five reasons given, I'd be curious to hear what it is.