More space: great if lots of pieces are on the board (obviously), sometimes problematic in endgames if weaknesses were caused by creating such space.
So to answer your question, creating space in the opening is important to help get your pieces active. However you always need to bear in mind longer-term weaknesses, as pawns can't move backwards.
I guess the way to view it is that the pieces themselves have no intrinsic value, it's the squares they control that is important.
Space, as Fiveofswords says, is about mobility. But, personally, I prefer cramped positions, which I find are easiest. For this reason, I play the Kings Indian as white but my own variation. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3 g3 I then bring d3 up and eventually f4 or h4 up and attack the king directly. It is lethal, quick, painless and absolutely racked with the ability for tactics. Then, for black against 1. e4 I play The French and I sometimes castle queen side as white is hard pushed to attack on that side and then destroy whites kingside. Against anything else, I play the King's Indian as before.
Hope this helped,
Dredd
Space, as Fiveofswords says, is about mobility. But, personally, I prefer cramped positions, which I find are easiest.
Isn't a position being cramped, by definition, bad? I can understand people preferring closed positions, but saying you prefer cramped positions sounds to me a bit like saying "I prefer positions where I have lots of weaknesses" or "I prefer being down material".
Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong though.
Although I guess many people (myself included) play best when the aim is to weather an attack and survive to win the endgame, e.g. if the opponent gained a strong attack in exchange for a long term weakness. For example, in some IQP positions one side may get a cramped but solid position, with good chances in the endgame if he manages to negate his opponent's activity.
Space, as Fiveofswords says, is about mobility. But, personally, I prefer cramped positions, which I find are easiest. For this reason, I play the Kings Indian as white but my own variation. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3 g3 I then bring d3 up and eventually f4 or h4 up and attack the king directly. It is lethal, quick, painless and absolutely racked with the ability for tactics. Then, for black against 1. e4 I play The French and I sometimes castle queen side as white is hard pushed to attack on that side and then destroy whites kingside. Against anything else, I play the King's Indian as before.
Hope this helped,
Dredd
That's interesting. Playing an opening that you know, but your opponent may not know as well, but which leads to rich tactical variety. I would think that while positionally the "crampedness" you speak of might be technically a weakness, perhaps your familiarity with the tactical patterns that arise from an unorthodox opening give you an advantage?
I whish that i had a better insight into what you were saying, dredd, but i am not far enough along to analyze an opening properly i don't think. I don't know a single opening, i just play for the center.
Is there a strong, logical argument for why we should strive to focus on space in the opening?
My theory so far is that if we are careful not to develop holes in our space, and we end up with more space than our opponent before center pawns begin being traded off, then once those center pawns are traded off the person who had more space has more maneuverability now that the center is open, thus they have more options and, statistically, a better option by that virture. Do you think this is a fair argument?
More space means better piece activity, better piece activity means you control more squares, controlling more squares leads to victory.
More space: great if lots of pieces are on the board (obviously), sometimes problematic in endgames if weaknesses were caused by creating such space.
So to answer your question, creating space in the opening is important to help get your pieces active. However you always need to bear in mind longer-term weaknesses, as pawns can't move backwards.
I guess the way to view it is that the pieces themselves have no intrinsic value, it's the squares they control that is important.
That's an interesting point you're making, and I am always careful not to advance pawns so far ahead that they can be taken for nothing.
Positional considerations aside, gaining space on the kingside can provide a foundation for an attack.
the most common error i see however is that people forget they only have one move at a time. gaining space may be good...usually it is honestly...but getting pieces active means you have to spend moves developing them towards the center. usually its better to activate pieces than to gain space...usually. if you have multiple ways to develop that require some clarification from your opponent about what structure he is going to choose then gaining space can also be a useful waiting move and a way to force the other guy to committ to something. i dont know theres a lot to consider...you could write many books devoted to the question of whether to push a pawn or not.
My problem often seems to be (this is mostly against the computer, btw) that if i develop pieces too quickly they get chased about and i end up in really bad positions. This is why i choose slower, strangulating development. How am i to think about developing pieces?
Do i focus on developing pieces to control the board first, and then develop the pawns that are to the sides of my pieces later in order to defend my pieces?
The logic behind "cramped positions are better, because if you have few squares available for your pieces it's much easier to avoid misplacing a piece" is completely retarded.
The logic behind "cramped positions are better, because if you have few squares available for your pieces it's much easier to avoid misplacing a piece" is completely retarded.
disgrace. Retarded is something I know about! 
My idea is that by gaining as much space as you possibly can cramps up your opponent and makes him vulnerable to tactics. Also he is cramped up on one side and you have the space advantage you can attack your opponent on the other side. In addition if you have the space advantage you can then judiciously open up lines that will then give you attacking advantages.
In his "Modern Chess Self-Tutor" David Bronstein says:
In order to win, a player must cross the equator [the line between the 4th and 5th ranks) and overcome the opponent first in the zone of important squares [4th and 5th ranks], then on the fortified line [6th rank] and then...in the vicinity of the king.
So, all other things being equal, you can't win by shuffling your pieces back and forth on your side of the board. Eventually you must take the game to your opponent. Gaining space is good.
However, Bronstein goes on to say on the next page:
But in chess there are no indisputable truths.
My problem often seems to be (this is mostly against the computer, btw) that if i develop pieces too quickly they get chased about and i end up in really bad positions. This is why i choose slower, strangulating development. How am i to think about developing pieces?
This is a good argument IMO not to play against a computer too much. The idea in chess is to win, not lose less quickly.
Computers can push your pieces around because they see tactics so much better than humans. If a computer can find a way to catch you out on a momentary awkardness of your pieces, it will -- much more so than humans.
You can't learn to win at chess from a crouching position. You need to play others roughly at your level so you can learn how to develop your pieces, gain space and attack.
The logic behind "cramped positions are better, because if you have few squares available for your pieces it's much easier to avoid misplacing a piece" is completely retarded.
pfren shows his usual light friendly touch in responding to the concerns of a new player with a bad paraphrase and ridicule.
I give the OP credit for asking a good question and thinking for himself.
I love this quote from Seirawan in his book, "Winning Chess Openings":
Believe in your own ideas.
Not all your ideas will be bright ones. In fact, you'll probably have ten false trails for every true one you find. Fine! So be it! But believe in your own ideas. Cling to them stubbornly. Give up on them slowly, only after severe trial and tribulations. If you keep getting clobbered, then seek an adjustment, but don't be afraid to play your own moves. They might be bad, but you'll learn a lot faster playing your own moves instead of mimicking others. Adjust your ideas by the results of your practice.
I tried developing my pieces more carefully, and had alot of success my last game by developing my pieces and my pawns in coordination. Still looking for a good way to formalize (or verbalize) the logic behind an opening, but i think I'm getting better. Thanks for the help guys!
@Battlefrisk
Think of chess space like 3 different types of yards.
1- A yard with 2 acres.
2- A yard with 5 acres.
3- A yard with 7 acres.
Now here is the comparison!
In chess when you have your pawns on like the 3 rank they consider that like the 2 acre yard.
When you have your pawns on the 4 rank they consider that like the 5 acre yard.
When you have your pawns on the 5th rank they consider that like the 7 acre yard.
In chess the 1st and the 3rd yards are considered the problem ones usually!
Now what is the Disadvantage of having only 2 arce yard!
Now what is the Advantage of having only 2 arce yard!
Now what is the Disadvantage of having only 7 arce yard!
Now what is the Advantage of having only 7 arce yard!
These same ideas happen in chess.
However you hear them in other words!
When people talk about positions which are cramped!
It is like the 2 acre yard.
Your chess pieces are like cars!
When you only have 2 acres you don't have alot of room so you are cramped!
When people talk about positions which are overextended!
It is like the 7 acre yard.
Your space is so much it has become hard to maintain!
The ideal set up is when you have your pawns on like the 4th rank or 5 acre yard.
It is not to cramped, but it is not to big!
It is the inbetween of both!
Not to small!
Not to big!
Is there a strong, logical argument for why we should strive to focus on space in the opening?
My theory so far is that if we are careful not to develop holes in our space, and we end up with more space than our opponent before center pawns begin being traded off, then once those center pawns are traded off the person who had more space has more maneuverability now that the center is open, thus they have more options and, statistically, a better option by that virture. Do you think this is a fair argument?