Clasically, a tempo is worth 1/3 of a pawn.
But since it depends so much on the specific position it's not as easy as giving a move a value. In the French and Sicilian for example, white can be many tempo ahead, but with few open lines, no pawn breaks, and no targets in black's camp, there's nothing to do with it. But in 1.e4 e5 and 1.d4 d5 games tempo has more importance.
I do like how you noticed developing queens and rooks would be worth less than knights in the opening.
As for pawns, I think we should distinguish between pawn moves that place or preserve a pawn in the center, and all other pawns moves. A timely h3 may ensure the d4 pawn is secure, but b5 in the Spanish is just sort of neutral, I wouldn't add or subtract for it.
Very interesting idea! I suppose it work only if no immediate tactical tricks/traps. I think all dev values can be adjusted.
With reserve im noob (and all is just hypothetycal):
Position1: white 7.45, black 5.30
(bishop open diagonals +0.25, open files on most possible enemy castling side +0.25, # of castling moves -0.25 each, central fields targeted +0.15 each, fields on middle lines not central targeted/occupied +0.1, free space back to pawns +0.1 except c and f pawns -0.25, isolated pawns -0.3, passed pawns +0.75, undefended fields back to pawns -0.15*field, bishop pair +0.25*freedom, each knight +0.05*freedom, queen exchanged +0.5 for black, +0.25 for white, queen on middle/wrong spot with no immediate threat -0.35, connected rooks +0.50, lifted rook with no immediate threat -0.25, mood of opponent +-1.50, air temperature/humidity +-0.50, quality of board and pieces +-0.50, silence +0.5, presence of public/camera or streaming -1.25, enemy made an insulting move +3.50, previous games played same day -1.25, different zone time -1.00 for each 4 hours up to -3.00). 
I may be wrong with numbers - need help to adjust them + i maybe missed some opening principles.
Unfortunately chess isn’t this easy and you can’t play by rules.
Black would be winning when he gets scholars mated...
The whole system by the OP is bullsh*t.
Total hogwash! Stop trying to reinvent the system and accept it for what it is. You have 2 pieces developed and control of e5, I have 4 pieces developed and control d4, e4, and d5, I have a lead in development. It has no numeric value. Even the 5 for the Rook and 3 for the knight is crap. Explain Rxc3 in the Dragon or Rxf3 in the closed Tarrasch!
The whole system by the OP is bullsh*t.
Total hogwash! Stop trying to reinvent the system and accept it for what it is. You have 2 pieces developed and control of e5, I have 4 pieces developed and control d4, e4, and d5, I have a lead in development. It has no numeric value. Even the 5 for the Rook and 3 for the knight is crap. Explain Rxc3 in the Dragon or Rxf3 in the closed Tarrasch!
point 2. doesnt appear to OP eval - its my pure speculation (i wasnt so serious posting that).
5.25 for Rook, 3.25 Bishp/Knight, 9.5 for Queen where used before as static values (sorry, i dont remember by who).
eval of dev by numbers may not be that bad idea.
chess principles may have exceptions.
Goren's point count system is effective for bridge, but that type of system is not so easily applied in chess. Bridge is wonderfully complex and difficult to play well, but would anyone maintain that it equals chess in that regard?
The earliest attempt that I am aware of to apply a point system to chess was a 1960 book by I.A. Horowitz called "Point Count Chess". I've never seen it recommended by any knowledgeable players or trainers, even though it is still in print, which probably means it's bunkum. Still, if you do for some reason want to develop a point system, it would make sense to start by seeing what's in that book and working from there.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what this is meant to do.....it isn't a measure of who is winning or losing, it's a measure of time maximization in the opening, and - yes - black has maximized development time more effectively in a typical scholar's mate position. It's just that checkmate can violate every other principle in the game when it works
The system for counting material (rooks are 5, bishops are 3 etc) isn't "wrong" about a sacrifice constituting a loss of material, it just doesn't matter if it delivers checkmate, and tripled, isolated pawns don't become strategically "strong" because checkmate exists.
Who cares about time maximization if the queen's hanging? But if the queen ISN'T hanging, I do think there is at least a little kernel of a good idea in this sort of idea.
It’s just hard to understand when it might be useful. There are so many exceptions and more important things than whether generally it’s better to develop knights first. Or that you shouldn’t move pawns twice, except when it’s good to do so.
How does it improve on a mixture of opening principles and concrete calculation? How is it better than the normal tempi to pawn values? In what real world situations would it be useful in decision making?
A perfect equal position, black to move, most possible "e" pawn capture. That show small differences on development so i guess can be useful to measure/test/adjust some parameters shown above, 1 point for some pawns developed vs 1 horse more for white. No other immediate tactical things i can see, almost ideal position for that kind of tests.
The whole system by the OP is bullsh*t.
No, its not lol. Does development matter? Absolutely, so case closed. In non-strategy speak, yes its not a black and white world, but no need to point out that North Korea might deploy nuclear today.
It makes me think of a discussion where someone mentions mileage and the other person says the shorter route has a higher accident rate and that mileage doesnt mattter.
I cant accept that masters doesnt evaluate a position, no matter what phase of game is, even opening. I know they memorize openings but surprises may appear - uncommon moves or novelties.
Possible, but the questions was about value of development. A relative value of pieces in first phase of a game. A rook in the corner defend 2 pieces and have zero mobility. After castling may get an open/semiopen file and still can defend 1-2 pieces or can have a target (let's say can see the enemy uncastled king). So its relative value increase and the king become more safe.
The "undeveloped" bishop things posted above it have more mobility just because open diagonals after moving pawns. So is not at all against opening principles - though i like more the long diagonal because will "see" the center or the enemy castling side. I like also previous post that say initial position may be better than developing somewhere else - its something like all pieces are "native" well defended. Knights though it take too many moves to reach a target + the central position allow more mobility so thats why a knight move in opening is preferred before other pieces - despite the fact that many times will block a pawn. Mobility of a piece increase the total numbers of moves u can have. So more chances to have a good move with better development than with a cramped position.
About castling - i used to play without loooong (and bad) time ... i still have 80% opponents with no castling (some told me that doesnt know how). One game i had i tried explain importance of. He said that doesnt see any threat to king so no need castle. Finally castled, the result was a disaster - he castled in wrong side! ( + no "f" pawn).
Sure, every side try to be as fast as he can, develop and attack/make threats sametime. Opening theory is waste - a simplified way to play is just follow principles and look at immediate threats so i think that counting somehow what pieces u develop is not bad at all.
"Point Count Chess" of I.A. Horowitz, mentioned above, doenst seems to give a numerical value of development, i like it though.
The whole system by the OP is bullsh*t.
No, its not lol. Does development matter? Absolutely, so case closed. In non-strategy speak, yes its not a black and white world, but no need to point out that North Korea might deploy nuclear today.
It makes me think of a discussion where someone mentions mileage and the other person says the shorter route has a higher accident rate and that mileage doesnt mattter.
What the OP posted has nothing to do with proper development.
It says you get 1/2 a point for moving a pawn, which means that 1.d4 scores the same as 1.h4. PA-LEEZ!
It says that pieces that move twice are docked a point. So 4.Ba4 in the Ruy Lopez or 3.e5 in the French or 4.cxb5 and 5.bxa6 in the Benko Gambit are all bad moves and hence drop a point, right? Again, PA-LEEZ!
After mentioning the points for moving and docking for double-movement, it says "Everything Else", meaning things that never move, get a 1/2 point dock.
So like my second item in the list, I score for playing f3 (i.e. 1/2 a point) and get penalized (Negative 1/2 of a point) for leaving it on f2 and not moving it!
Yes, the whole system that the OP Posted is horsesh*t!
Saying that it is of use because we develop in chess is like saying that because we eat breakfast, the following pancake recipe is useful:
Pancakes (Makes 8):
4 Tablespoons of Peanut Butter
1 cup of Chocolate Milk
1 cooked scrambled egg
1 cup Johnson's Baby Powder
10W40 Oil
Mix the Peanut Butter, Chocolate Milk, Scrambled Egg, and Baby Powder into a mix. Place some 10W40 on the frying pan, place mix on the pan in the form of 8 circles, flip to cook the other side, and serve. Best served with Chocolate Syrup on top!
@thrillerfan is characteristically harsh, but correct.
Even so, I like things like this, and it can't hurt the OP to be thinking about such things. Only harmful if they become dogmatic about it. Let her play some games and expand / modify her ideas.
Funnily enough, this is actually exactly how computers evaluate who's ahead in a position! When there are no immediate tactics, computers look for things like:
- Doubled up pawns, hanging pawns, isolated pawns
- Knights controlling centre vs being stuck on the rim
- King safety
- Queen taking central control
- Rooks doubled up and having open files
- Bishops having free, open diagonals vs being crammed in in closed positions
Lately, I've been thinking about leads in development, how they're considered, and how they're counted. And I've been wondering if it isn't a little more complex than just counting the pieces which are off their original squares.
Hypothesis:
That there is a material value we can assign to each piece's development in the opening....the exact centipawns are for someone smarter than me to work out, but my simplified arithmetic is as follows
Moving a piece twice will SUBTRACT from its development value
The last rule: You only count it if it's still on the board.
So - after a look at some theoretical positions - I would like to know if this looks like a useful way of analyzing developmental leads, potential pawn sacrifices, and the way time functions in the opening
White to move in all of these
NAJDORF
White: 3.5
Black: 2.5
MERAN
White: 5
Black: 5.5
RUY LOPEZ (some old main line)
White: 5
Black: 7.5
BENKO
White: -3
Black: 2.5
Obviously, this kind of systemic thinking will break down at some level, but it's an interesting means of evaluating things.