Typically, being too far behind in development in an open position can lead to the opponent having a local superiority great enough to launch a combination.
Not always, though. Each position is individual and concrete... this is what makes chess so hard: no "general rule" is absolute. With the proper Pawn structure... a Scheveningen center duo, for example... you can be appallingly far behind in development and still have a playable game.
Typically, being too far behind in development in an open position can lead to the opponent having a local superiority great enough to launch a combination.
Not always, though. Each position is individual and concrete... this is what makes chess so hard: no "general rule" is absolute. With the proper Pawn structure... a Scheveningen center duo, for example... you can be appallingly far behind in development and still have a playable game.
Which types of pawn structures enable a position to still be playable despite being behind in development in an open position?
Typically, being too far behind in development in an open position can lead to the opponent having a local superiority great enough to launch a combination.
Not always, though. Each position is individual and concrete... this is what makes chess so hard: no "general rule" is absolute. With the proper Pawn structure... a Scheveningen center duo, for example... you can be appallingly far behind in development and still have a playable game.
Which types of pawn structures enable a position to still be playable despite being behind in development in an open position?
Again, you seem to be asking for over-arching rules where none exist. As I said, each position is individual, sui generis. There are no generalizations that hold 100% of the time.
In a more limited sense, a Pawn structure that prevents the opposing pieces from taking up their most aggressive stations is most likely to enable you to survive while behind in development in an open position.
The formation that I mentioned above (the Scheveningen Pawn Duo) is an excellent example. With two Pawns sitting side by side on e6 and d6, the squares f5/e5/d5/c5 are all protected, and the c4-f7 and f4-c7 diagonals (as well as the e-and d-files) are all obstructed. White will have a considerable advantage in development, but against accurate defense he will have a hard time turning it to account.
My game (here on chess.com) in the Malaysia vs Canada rated match might be a good example. My opponent was - at the time - rated six points higher than me, and he went in for a violent tactical assault against my Scheveningen Center Duo position:
My notes to the game:
A Heroic Defense in the Sicilian Najdorf - Kids, don't try this at home! - Chess Forums - Chess.com
Typically, being too far behind in development in an open position can lead to the opponent having a local superiority great enough to launch a combination.
Not always, though. Each position is individual and concrete... this is what makes chess so hard: no "general rule" is absolute. With the proper Pawn structure... a Scheveningen center duo, for example... you can be appallingly far behind in development and still have a playable game.
Which types of pawn structures enable a position to still be playable despite being behind in development in an open position?
Again, you seem to be asking for over-arching rules where none exist. As I said, each position is individual, sui generis. There are no generalizations that hold 100% of the time.
In a more limited sense, a Pawn structure that prevents the opposing pieces from taking up their most aggressive stations is most likely to enable you to survive while behind in development in an open position.
The formation that I mentioned above (the Scheveningen Pawn Duo) is an excellent example. With two Pawns sitting side by side on e6 and d6, the squares f5/e5/d5/c5 are all protected, and the c4-f7 and f4-c7 diagonals (as well as the e-and d-files) are all obstructed. White will have a considerable advantage in development, but against accurate defense he will have a hard time turning it to account.
My game (here on chess.com) in the Malaysia vs Canada rated match might be a good example. My opponent was - at the time - rated six points higher than me, and he went in for a violent tactical assault against my Scheveningen Center Duo position:
My notes to the game:
A Heroic Defense in the Sicilian Najdorf - Kids, don't try this at home! - Chess Forums - Chess.com
What determines where a pieces most aggressive squares are?
There's no general answer.
It's a combination of "how many squares do I control from here?", "how important are the squares that I control?", "where are the enemy weak points?" and "what enemy defenses will I encounter?"
Also very important are questions like "how will I support and cooperate with this attacking unit?" and "is my pressure being focused, or dispersed across the board?". Even the best placed piece won't accomplish much if it has nobody to cooperate with.
There's no general answer.
It's a combination of "how many squares do I control from here?", "how important are the squares that I control?", "where are the enemy weak points?" and "what enemy defenses will I encounter?"
Also very important are questions like "how will I support and cooperate with this attacking unit?" and "is my pressure being focused, or dispersed across the board?". Even the best placed piece won't accomplish much if it has nobody to cooperate with.
Are weak points underdefended and undercontrolled squares as well as open files and squares that leave the queen and king vulnerable?
What determines how important certain squares are?
There is no "formula" that will tell you how important each positional factor is. Chess would be a very easy game if there were.
There's a reason that even players as talented as Mikhail Tal, Bobby Fischer or Magnus Carlsen had to study and practice for years (typically for decades) before they reached the top. It's because rote memorization (whether of lines or of principles) is no substitute for experience.
Have you read this thread?
=> GM Larry Evans' method of static analysis - Chess Forums - Chess.com
It explains a lot about assessing a position and forming a reasonable plan.
There is no "formula" that will tell you how important each positional factor is. Chess would be a very easy game if there were.
There's a reason that even players as talented as Mikhail Tal, Bobby Fischer or Magnus Carlsen had to study and practice for years (typically for decades) before they reached the top. It's because rote memorization (whether of lines or of principles) is no substitute for experience.
Have you read this thread?
=> GM Larry Evans' method of static analysis - Chess Forums - Chess.com
It explains a lot about assessing a position and forming a reasonable plan.
Is preventing your opponents pieces from occupying their most aggressive squares an act of prophylaxis?
Yes, in the broad sense.
Prophylaxis (in chess) includes any strategy or tactic that prevents the opponent from making the best use of his available resources. So stopping a piece from taking (or from fully exploiting) a strong open line would fall under the heading of "prophylaxis".
#3
"Does it lead to white inevitably ending up having more material than black?"
++ Yes, but it may take 20 moves before the positional advantage of control over the center leads by force to some win of material.
"Is black doomed?" ++ Yes.
Yes, in the broad sense.
Prophylaxis (in chess) includes any strategy or tactic that prevents the opponent from making the best use of his available resources. So stopping a piece from taking (or from fully exploiting) a strong open line would fall under the heading of "prophylaxis".
Is black capable of setting up a defensive or prophylactic pawn structure after white goes C3?
#3
"Does it lead to white inevitably ending up having more material than black?"
++ Yes, but it may take 20 moves before the positional advantage of control over the center leads by force to some win of material.
"Is black doomed?" ++ Yes.
To be fair my gut feeling is that black will end up losing material, too, although I think in 20 moves is probably an exaggeration, the very least amount of moves I would expect for black to concede a loss of a piece or pawn is probably closer to 7.
Yes, in the broad sense.
Prophylaxis (in chess) includes any strategy or tactic that prevents the opponent from making the best use of his available resources. So stopping a piece from taking (or from fully exploiting) a strong open line would fall under the heading of "prophylaxis".
Is black capable of setting up a defensive or prophylactic pawn structure after white goes C3?
Possibly, but it would be MUCH more difficult in this case (after 3. ... Bb4) than it would have been if Black had played a more sensible move, like 3. ... Bc5 (or even 2. ... d6).
The reason that it is more difficult after 3. ... Bb4 is that Black is first losing time and misplacing his Bishop AND THEN trying to set up a defensive line... rather than just setting up the defensive line from the start, without first making serious concessions.
If you like those restricted "two Pawns side-by-side defending" positions... and I'm rather fond of them myself... you should consider playing the Hanham Philidor instead of this 3. ... Bb4 idea. The Hanham is rather rare, so most of your opponents won't have anything prepared against it, and it gives you a constricted but solid and hard-to-get-at position, much like the Scheveningen Center Duo position in the game I showed above.
The Hanham:
#54
"To be fair my gut feeling is that black will end up losing material, too, although I think in 20 moves is probably an exaggeration, the very least amount of moves I would expect for black to concede a loss of a piece or pawn is probably closer to 7."
++ No, 20 moves is no exaggeration. The first thing that will happen is that white will gain the bishop's pair. Then the bishop's pair will dominate and win more material. Then white will win the game.
After reading this, I have to ask: What is the goal of Bb4? What are you hoping to accomplish by putting your Bishop there?
After reading this, I have to ask: What is the goal of Bb4? What are you hoping to accomplish by putting your Bishop there?
I've asked that a few times without receiving any answer.
Yes, in the broad sense.
Prophylaxis (in chess) includes any strategy or tactic that prevents the opponent from making the best use of his available resources. So stopping a piece from taking (or from fully exploiting) a strong open line would fall under the heading of "prophylaxis".
Is black capable of setting up a defensive or prophylactic pawn structure after white goes C3?
Possibly, but it would be MUCH more difficult in this case (after 3. ... Bb4) than it would have been if Black had played a more sensible move, like 3. ... Bc5 (or even 2. ... d6).
The reason that it is more difficult after 3. ... Bb4 is that Black is first losing time and misplacing his Bishop AND THEN trying to set up a defensive line... rather than just setting up the defensive line from the start, without first making serious concessions.
If you like those restricted "two Pawns side-by-side defending" positions... and I'm rather fond of them myself... you should consider playing the Hanham Philidor instead of this 3. ... Bb4 idea. The Hanham is rather rare, so most of your opponents won't have anything prepared against it, and it gives you a constricted but solid and hard-to-get-at position, much like the Scheveningen Center Duo position in the game I showed above.
The Hanham:
Is a restricted two pawns side by side defending pawn structure the sort of structure black should pick after white goes C3?
Is a restricted two pawns side by side defending pawn structure the sort of structure black should pick after white goes C3?
That would be difficult to do in this case (after 3. ... Bb4) because you already have a Knight on c6, occupying and obstructing one of the two "Hanham" squares. You would be trying to switch horses in mid-stream.
We could answer better if we knew what the POINT of Bb4 was.
Is a restricted two pawns side by side defending pawn structure the sort of structure black should pick after white goes C3?
That would be difficult to do in this case (after 3. ... Bb4) because you already have a Knight on c6, occupying and obstructing one of the two "Hanham" squares. You would be trying to switch horses in mid-stream.
We could answer better if we knew what the POINT of Bb4 was.
What does switching horses mean? Is that a bad thing?
Generally speaking, you need a superiority of two pieces to launch a combination. So if the opponent has one defender in the target area, you would need three attackers. This is just a rough rule of thumb, but it usually works. Then you look for tactics... pins, forks, skewers, overloads, decoying and diverting operations, etc.
A few examples:
From an over-the-board tournament in the Canadian Maritimes:
Another over-the-board game:
So in an open position having inferior development leads to the side with inferior development losing material due to their being not enough pieces defending?