The space. Level: Amateur
When talking about space, there are suggestions for recognizing whether one side has more than the other. For example, there are the count of squares under control of the pieces and pawns, or how many pieces and pawns are from the 4th horizontal (5th for Black) onwards. There are also criteria based on pawns, such as how many squares of the rival territory ("his" four ranks) fall under the control of our pawns or the comparison of the mobility of the pawns (can they advance without risk?). And all these criteria can be sectorized so that one speaks of space in the center, on the queenside, or the kingside.
Let's start by saying that such methods are visual aids, not logical. In a logical sense, space deals with the availability of squares to carry out or deny the activity. Seen in this way, space does not take value in itself but as a component in the development or impediment of an idea.
This leads to the value of space dealing with a quality and not quantity and the understanding that having more squares than the rival (space advantage) is not a requirement to develop active or defensive ideas but only those necessary in the context of the concept. In simple terms, it can be expressed in "do I have or can I get the squares and roads to develop and complete my idea?" and "do I have the squares and roads to hinder and prevent his idea?".
The space advantage.
Determining quality requires concrete analysis to clarify which square or squares are necessary to develop or deny an idea ("critical squares"). Hence, to allow evaluations that exceed the precise calculation horizon, it is common to assume that the larger or smaller space is directly related to mobility, flexibility, and the probability of being able to develop and complete ideas, both active and defensive. But this is an assumption where space is treated as independent of activity, time, and material and, consequently, it may be wrong, as seen in cases where the advantage of space is counterproductive (over-extension) or where the space disadvantage does not affect the ability for active or defensive play. And it is precisely by trying to reduce the margin of error due to over-simplification that the handling of the concept of space becomes complex.
For example, to reduce the margin of error by simple visual appreciation (over-simplification), it is checked by relating the space to the present and latent activity, looking for ideas to progress from the available space, which does not necessarily have to be the larger one. In other words, the space advantage is favorable if it deprives the opponent of counterplay and defensive capacity, it can be playable if the counterplay can be controlled and, or decrease the opponent's defensive capability, and it is disadvantageous when the rival can obtain counterplay due to over-extension, either by attacking the front line themselves or by infiltration in our position.
Another way to get a precise value for space is to associate it with pawn structures and activity. Every pawn structure has a limited capacity to accommodate the pieces and allow them squares and internal and external communication roads to develop an activity or oppose the activity of the rival. By exceeding this capacity, the pieces begin to get in the way, and their efficiency is reduced to the point that they can be subjected to passivity and unable to oppose effective defense in any sector.
How to play with space advantage?
Playing good chess has a lot to do with identifying the right idea that achieves the most. The queen is the strongest piece, but if individual strength is used as the sole criterion, the queen is played from the second move on. That said, after 1.f3 e5 2.g4 ?? Qh4, mate, the queen has done an excellent job. But this is because there is a motive. Knowing the methodology and technique is good, but it is more important to recognize if there is a motive to follow a method and a technique.
It is relevant to talk about space when it is the most crucial factor behind the activity on the board. In an ending with the possibility of zugzwang, it is said that it is the time factor, but it can also be noted that it is the lack of squares to oppose the rival activity. The same is true of a queen caught in the center of the board by rival pieces and pawns. There are also compound cases, such as Black in short-castle with a knight on f6, where the move g4-g5 may force it to leave the post and lose activity/defense/control on d7, d5, e4, g4, h5, h7, g8 and e8, and this new situation may give motives for White's active plans.
On the opposite side of the sidewalk, there are cases where the control of many squares in a sector is appreciable. Yet, the space advantage is not the most critical factor in the evaluation. Time and material also matter, but the piece activity determines the way of playing. For example, in the case of opposite castles with mutual attacks, although the material and squares are important, the activity relies on time to develop threats against the king –before the rival does the same–-, which explains the commonality in making material and other concessions in such attacks.
Now, generally speaking, space advantage is appropriately said of when a side has limited or non-existent activity due to the control of squares by rival pieces and pawns and the lack of squares within its position to accommodate and mobilize the pieces to deal with the rival activity. This is the situation that some call "pure" space advantage.
In these positions, general guidelines can be given for conducting the game. For example, he is patient and prevents rival counterplay by tying down his pieces to defensive tasks. Given the limited space for rival pieces, the opponent will not have many possibilities to activate his pieces in a coordinated way and get counterplay so that prophylaxis can be justified.
On the same line, avoid opening lines that allow counterplay for the " compressed " side. This is because the side with space advantage typically has his pieces pressing the opposing position and not controlling his inner squares so that the counterplay could take unprotected material and, even if the counterplay is controllable, it will distract the active pieces and probably lead to exchanges, which can render the space advantage as of no consequence.
Concentrating the play in the sector where the opponent has more difficulty accommodating and mobilizing defenders is advisable. However, sometimes it is not possible to overcome the defensive coordination in the sector, so it is also recommended to take advantage of the greater mobility of the pieces themselves to look for a play on more than one point in a combined or alternate way, to stretch the defenders more beyond their flexibility limit.
It is recommended to avoid exchanging pieces. The reason is that the exchanges reduce the offensive capacity, facilitating the defender's mobility by reducing the number of pieces that may interfere with each other. There are exceptions, of course, such as when the exchange removes a critical defensive piece or a key counterplay piece.
In general, one seeks to progress within the rival position so that the radius of action of the invading pieces creates multiple or unstoppable threats. With this idea in mind, it is common to try to use the space advantage by clearing invasion roads or lines that allow the activity of long-range pieces. In this sense, pushing the pawns forward can effectively control space and exchange them for rival pawns that obstruct the roads and lines. But it should not be forgotten that the pawns do not move back and that although each advance controls squares closest to the rival, it also relaxes or loses control of squares within our position. Besides, if the opponent stops and blocks the pawns, they can become weak and allow active play for the side with less space.
