Hmmph. No response. 
OK, I'll assume that means that my suspicion was right--that chess lacks the more specific terminology it needs to move to the next level--so I'll take that as a green light to invent my own terms for generalizing tactics, openings, and more. If I try hard enough, maybe I can catch up to eastyz's work.
control vs cover vs threaten vs attack vs target
Sort:
Feb 2, 2016
0
#2
The day has been tough, I'll try to take a look at this tomorrow. But, on a note aside, I think there was no response because you need at least two posts to make a thread appear on the list of topics.
Feb 3, 2016
0
#4
Today I found some chess sites that had definitions for most of these terms, and *every* definition of every term here had some *major* flaw in it. 
()
attack =
(1)
To attack a piece is to create a threat (see "threat"). This means that you move one of your pieces to a square where,
if your opponent does nothing, you would be able to capture one of your opponent's pieces on the next move.
(2)
An "attack" in chess can also be the cooperation of a few pieces (or perhaps all of the pieces) towards one direction of the board.
This direction may be the kingside or the queenside, aimed at a weak square, or sometimes an attack can be directed towards one piece in particular,
like the enemy king (see "mating attack").
REFERENCE
http://www.chesskid.com/article/view/the-glossary-for-chess-kids-and-parents
MY NOTES
Two different meanings/definitions suggest that this term is too ambiguous.
Contradiction: Per the definition of "threat" on this same site, preparing for a back rank mate would be considered a "threat", but per this definition it would not be, since it doesn't involve a capture.
It also contracts the definition of "battery" on this site, since that mentions attacking a square, which per this definition requires a piece on that square. (Not to mention the erroneous use of the term "piece" instead of "unit.")
()
Blockade/Blockading Square
To make a blockade is to place a piece in front of another piece, and thus prevent that piece from moving forward.
The most common blockade might be placing a piece (usually a knight) in front of a pawn.
Placing a piece in front of a passed pawn (see "passed pawn") is usually a good idea,
and knights are very good when blockading because they are the only pieces that attack over and around other pieces.
The term "blockading square" usually refers to the square directly in front of a pawn, and that square is best occupied by a knight, as noted above.
REFERENCE
http://www.chesskid.com/article/view/the-glossary-for-chess-kids-and-parents
MY NOTES
Wrong use of the word "piece".
Doesn't explain which units can be blockaded: only pawns? Pawns and king?
()
control =
a chessman controls a square if it is legal for the chessman to move there, to capture the enemy chessman that's there, or to protect its own side's chessman that's there.
REFERENCE
http://www.davidlevinchess.com/version_030825/my_website/glossary/framedef.htm
MY NOTES
This definition seems to overlook the behavior of pawns, which can move to a square where they can't capture, therefore by this definition they "control" that square, but the term is misleading since they have no power over that square.
()
cover =
To control a square with another pawn or piece that could capture on that square.
REFERENCE
https://chess24.com/en/read/glossary/cover
MY NOTES
Useless definition since it relies on the definition of "cover," which does not exist on this site.
()
threat =
A move which one side plans to make, which would be bad for the opponent.
REFERENCE
http://www.chesskid.com/article/view/the-glossary-for-chess-kids-and-parents
MY NOTES
Very generic, and ultimately based on subjective evaluation!
Are there strict conventions as to which situations the terms "control" / "cover" / "threaten" / "attack" / "target" apply, and if so, what are those conventions?
For example:
Is it possible for a piece to "attack" a square?
If one friendly piece covers a given square but two enemy pieces cover it, is it still accurate to say that you "control" the square when the enemy has more control over it?
If your pieces attack a unit once that the enemy protects once, and if by exchanging you would come out behind, is it accurate to say that you "threaten" that unit? Do there exist different terms to distinguish between the cases where you would come out ahead versus come out behind?
Does there exist a general term to describe the general situation where a piece covers either a square or an enemy piece? Would the term "target" suffice?
Do there exist additional similar terms that might describe more clear-cut situations?
The reason I ask is that I'm trying to derive all possible conditions of interest as the foundation of several other studies, such as characterizing tactical wins, or creating criteria that describe the motivations behind opening moves.