Development?

In the thread Middle game strategies and in my blog, I've raised the issue of the inadequacy of the language we use to understand, apply, and teach to others the principles of strategic planning. Two recent books that question classical chess theory are Dan Heisman, Elements of Positional Evaluation: How Chess Pieces Get their Power (1999) and John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances since Nimzowitsch (1998). Heisman, in particular, attacks the notion of development, which he calls vague and misleading. He even suggests that it can impair a chess player's growth in strength. As I was whipped soundly in a snail-mail correspondence game several years ago by a youth that was taking lessons from Heisman, I consider his words carefully before I dismiss them.

In my investigation of Heisman's critique, I take careful note of the language employed by chess writers that are seeking to explain strategic principles. An instance that came across my desk in this morning's reading comes from the excellent Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective by Valeri Beim.

Beim presents the game Schulten -- Morphy, New York 1857 in which the following position occurred.

White played 12.dxc6.

Beim comments, "This decisive error illustrates the gap between Morphy and his American contemporaries. It violates the most important principle of chess: namely development. Both this principle and the principle of co-ordination of forces that flows from it have many ramifications" (23, emphasis in original). 

This cardinal principle of development needs definition. Beim does not define it here, although as I mention in my blog, several pages earlier he appears to offer a definition that may stand well:

"the principle of bringing into play the greatest number of pieces in the shortest possible time" (16, emphasis in original).

Beim's assertion that coordination proceeds from development helps us to see that there are, perhaps, a set of concrete principles that are expressed when the word development is offered. What are these principles? Do they proceed logically from development? Is the term development adequate shorthand for these principles? 

 It is not a question of whether development works for you or me, but whether it is unreasonably vague, as Dan Heisman alleges. Heisman offers a set of principles that he claims are superior to the classic principles articulated in chess literature through the past generations.

Heisman's elements:

Mobility

Flexibility

Vulnerability

Center Control

Piece Coordination

Time

Speed

After reading Heisman's book a few years ago, I started listening more carefully to how strong chess players talk about development and other alleged principles of chess strategy. It is my contention that most of the time, the word development means mobility. As mobility is concrete--one can, for example, count the number of squares that each piece can reach in any given position--and development is abstract, it seems that mobility is superior to development as the term that aids our thinking. Alas, mobility is not always what is meant by development.

Your argumentum ad hominem fails to address the question, and contributes nothing to an understanding of chess theory. It also conveniently overlooks the point that the foundation of today's chess theory is founded upon the overthrow of the principles laid out by world champion Wilhelm Steinitz by Aron Nimzowitsch, who never achieved world champion status. Moreover, most English speaking chess players today are learning the elements of chess strategy from books by a couple of chaps from the West Coast, one of whom is not even a grandmaster: GM Yasser Seiriwan and IM Jeremey Silman.

Heisman's elements: Mobility, Flexibility, Vulnerability, Center Control, Piece Coordination, Time, Speed

I submit that the above elements are typically no more concrete than development. It is the job of the author to be certain that there is an agreed upon working definition of the terms. I was willing to give you a concrete working definition of development in the Forums. I was also willing to expand on the idea of development in terms of good development and bad development. I didn't make this definition up either, this is what I have learned from stronger players and this is what has helped me progress as a player.

Does Heisman give concrete definitions for his elements? Let's look at each.

Mobility. You suggest that this is concrete because you can simply count the number of squares the piece can go to. A knight on c3 can go to b1, but does this potential move make it more mobile, nearly all the time this move will be bad. If our opponent has a pawn on c6 the knight moves Nb5 and Nb4 count towards the mobility of the piece in your definition, but do they really make the knight more mobile? In general, you can count the moves of the piece, but should you count the bad moves? Your definition seems vague and misleading if I am to take increasing mobility to be a goal.

Flexibility. Honestly, I don't know what this is. If I had to guess I'd say a piece is flexible if it has a choice of more than 1 good square. Then you have the problem that without the knowledge of what are "good squares" and "bad squares" this definition is vague. At least, it is as vague as development without knowing what are good squares and bad squares to develop your pieces to.

 Vulnerability. I recall analyzing a position with a strong player. He suggested a move and I asked "wouldn't that create a big weakness near your king?" Clearly I was at a stage where vulnerability was an element that was important to me. The strong player asked me how the opponent would exploit that weakness. He left me with a message "a weakness is only a weakness if your opponent can attack it." To this day I struggle with this. Is it ok to have a double pawn? Is it ok to have a hole in my pawn structure? These are vulnerabilities -- but not if the opponent can't take advantage!

Center Control. Believing that this is a concrete term is to believe that "control" is a concrete term. When do we control a square? When it's occupied? When a pawn attacks it? When multiple pieces attack it? What if both sides have a pawn attacking the same square? Can either side control it? What if we attack a square with a pawn and two pieces and we think we can control it, but the opponent could attack it with a pawn if they were willing to weaken their king pawn structure? And where is the center anyway? Is it just the 4 most central squares? Often times the neighboring squares are just as important.

Piece Coordination. This is one of the most frustrating terms I've ever read in a chess book. How many times have I been shown a diagram and the author says "Black's pieces are not well coordinated while white's are" and I'm left thinking "how does he know that? And how did white plan for this to happen?"

Time and Speed. I only have a hazy guess at what this means. If I make a move that accomplishes a goal while making a threat then my opponent has to respond to the threat rather than accomplishing a goal of his own. When this happens I gain "time". Unfortunately, this still relies on knowing what my goals are, which are invariably getting my pieces to good squares and we already know the problem with that.

I gave you a definition of development yesterday in the Forums that was not vague at all -- removing of the minor pieces from the back rank, castling, connecting the rooks.

This definition is misleading. And that's why I gave along with it "good development" and "bad development". These are unfortunately vague because they require the knowlege of what are good squares and what are bad squares.

Unfortunately, you cannot teach everything at once. First you teach something simple and as the student gains experience with the simple ideas, then you teach something more complex. If a player's natural instinct is to grab one piece and move it all over the board until it's gone before bringing out the next piece, this habit must be broken first. 

 Thank you for a detailed and conscientious reply. Your post here, and in reply to the trouble I caused in the Middle game strategies thread, merit far more attention than I can give them right now. Yet a few immediate remarks are necessary.

I agree that you've given a concrete definition of development:

Definition of development: The removal of the minor pieces from the back rank, securing the safety of the king (most often by castling), the connecting of the rooks on the back rank.

Indeed, I've been teaching a version of these concrete actions to many dozens of scholastic chess players for several years. I first presented these ideas as the "Tarrasch formula"--I'm certain that you are familiar with Tarrasch's efforts to more fully articulate the principles of modern chess first set out by Steinitz. I learned many years ago, and passed on to my pupils, that each player should aim through the first ten moves to deploy his pieces along lines similar to that of White in the position below.

Then, I saw quite a few games reach positions like the next diagram.

I realized that more instruction was needed. Each player was developing, but they were doing nothing to impede the other, nor were they looking at tactics.

With respect to the element of vulnerability, I think that you've hit upon the critical point. While "king safety" might lead to castling without concrete analysis of the position, vulnerability emphasizes that a king that cannot be assailed does not lack security. Pieces, squares, and the monarch himself need protection from the forces that can attack. In the absence of such forces, we can ask, "safety from what"?

More on this topic later... 

Heisman is a National Master, but his chess playing is not his best credential as a teacher. He has been a full time teacher for a long time and has received national acclaim for his teaching.

I wouldn't expect him to teach masters to become IMs, but as for teaching novices, his past success makes him one of the best. So if you want to figure out how to teach new players the game, what he has to say deserves serious consideration.

Though, you can probably tell from what I've written that I wouldn't take what he says as gospel word. Just that he's put so much effort into how to teach the ideas of chess that it's worth reading and considering before dismissing it just because his rating is too low.

"Can you tell me what sort of "credentials" this Heisman fella has in chess?"

Dan Heisman is an NM rated 2285 FIDE. His claim to fame is a free and popular column called Novice Nook which he's been publishing on ChessCafe since 2001. He actively coaches juniors, published two books, and received a meritorious service award from the USCF earlier this year. And his articles are extremely accessible.

"I know Silman and even have a couple of his books, at least he is an IM."

Silman's FIDE rating is 2383, so their playing strengths don't seem too different.

As you go up the rating scale the points become harder and harder to earn. There is a bigger difference between 2300-2400 than 1600-1700 for example. The fact that Silman is an IM means he had to be 2400 (minimum) at some point to get the title. I think the difference in their playing ability is larger than you might think. However, my points is that you have a NM trying to basically overthrow what world class players taught before him? I dont think he has the credentials to do that.

There is a bigger difference between 2300-2400 than 1600-1700 for example.

This is where an NM's perspective comes in handy.

"Beim comments, "This decisive error illustrates the gap between Morphy and his American contemporaries."

Beim is wrong here. This decisive error illustrates only the gap between Morphy and Schulten (which, btw, was tremendous).  Schulten was one of Morphy's least successful American competitors. This isn't to say the gap Beim refers to didn't exist, only that his illustration was faulty and didn't prove what it claimed.  Morphy's worst record in England was against Barnes. But if one looks closely at the series of games between the two of them, it seems quite likely that if the series had continued, the gap between Morphy and his most successful English competitor would have been somewhat similar to that between Morphy and Schulten.

 Fair enough. But, Beim's emphasis is not on the ignorance of Morphy's adversaries, but on his knowledge and understanding. Beim asserts that Morphy "possessed an ideal sense" of the principles of development and coordination, and the other strategic principles he outlines in his study of the nineteenth century prodigy. Is Beim incorrect that Morphy well understood these principles? More to the point of my concern here, is Beim's articulation of the principles an accurate expression of the elements of chess strategy that lead to success, whether in Morphy's day or ours?

kenny, I wouldn't have described this as an argument at all. I think what's going on here is that amateurs are trying to figure out what the masters know that we don't. Unfortunately the game of chess is complex and it is very difficult to write down in simple straightforward terms how to play good moves. Trying to shoot the moving target leads to a discussion with a lot of flailing.

I have appreciated what everyone has to say here since I too would like to better understand how to make better chess moves.