Development?

kenytiger wrote: This whole thing has become a pointless argument. We have too many "experts" around here, that's the problem I see.

---

 Edward Lasker, whose brilliant win against George Thomas is celebrated here, wrote in Chess Strategy (1915), "Let us therefore bear in mind that the mobility of the pieces is the deciding factor of their efficiency, and that mobility is the highest criterion by which to judge the merits (or demerits) of their operations" (20).

Dan Heisman calls his book, Elements of Positional Evaluation, a "cult classic".

 A CULT CLASSIC

Publisher: Chess Enterprises; - I have purchased the rights to this book! My plan is to come out with a fourth edition someday!

Book Overview: My life "treatise" - originally written on a typewriter in 1974-75.  Now sold out its 3rd edition.  Describes the basis for how each piece gets its value and relates, in a very basic (but not for beginners) way how that relates to evaluating positions.  Describes the basic elements that can be used for non-tactically evaluating a position.  Not as many diagrams or examples as I would like because I didn't have the tools at that time to include them!  Very unique for its time (and even now!). IM John Watson's award-winning new book, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy, has many examples the ideas my Elements book discusses.  The first edition (yellow) was the old text.  The 2nd edition (pink) was made more conversational.  The 3rd edition (Blue) added more diagrams and  recent references.

pasted from http://danheisman.home.comcast.net/~danheisman/

I just made an observation. The point was that Beim is trying to make a case for Morphy's understanding of certain principles based on a house of cards.  He might be right, but he fails to demonstrate it.  I read a similar treatise concerning the use of the term "plan" though I'm not sure where I read it, though I believe it was by the late Ken Smith. A few chess terms are used with imprecise, or at least unclear, definitions and at different times, by different people they mean different things. I'm not sure you can force a universally accepted definition, as these things take a path of their own.  A person can only define things as he himself intends them to mean. However, conversely, one can define things, such as development, as an educational tool. I think this is what Mr. Heisman did.

The problem, as I see it, is that I read something like what Ziryab quoted from Lasker and it doesn't help me one iota in making a chess move.  Yet, Lasker is great at making chess moves and believes that what he's written is the most fundamental basis of how he makes chess moves.

 

So where does that leave me? It leaves me looking for clarification of what Lasker means. If this comes a national master, an expert, an IM, or someone on a forum whose credentials I have no idea of I really don't care. I've learned to play better chess moves from players of many different strengths. Not because they rewrote the principles that have been passed down from the champions, but because they understood them differently than I did and shared their perspective with me.

Loomis wrote:

The problem, as I see it, is that I read something like what Ziryab quoted from Lasker and it doesn't help me one iota in making a chess move.  Yet, Lasker is great at making chess moves and believes that what he's written is the most fundamental basis of how he makes chess moves.

---

The quote from Lasker originally posted serves only to show that a leading teacher of chess a century ago was emphasizing mobility. The full paragraph might be a bot more help. It also adds to this discussion a basic observation that has motivated my questions from the beginning: frequently the effort to define development leads to a discussion of mobility. 

 

 In Diagram 14, the numerical equality of forces will not save
Black, because bad development reduces the mobility of his pieces
to such an extent that he has no resources with which he can
parry the impending attack.

 

 

  

White will assail the Black King's position on the Queen side,
and Black is unable to concentrate his forces quickly enough for
the defence of the jeopardised entrenchments. Let us therefore
bear in mind that the mobility of the pieces is the deciding
factor of their efficiency, and that mobility is the highest
criterion by which to judge the merits (or demerits) of their
operations. (Lasker, Chess Strategy, 20)

Very interesting article and replies!

LoL, well it sounds reasonable to me, to suggest that there may be other ways of doing things. As far as exploring several different possibilities and approaches, as a beginner, I'm pretty much open to anything as long as it works well.

Ziryab, I thought in post #8 the diagram of both players developing their pieces to the optimum formation without impeding each other was cute lol. Typical beginner mindset, "you do your thing and I'll do mine, and when we go to war we'll just trade right down and have a fair game"

Well, you don't have to be a world champion to have something valid to say about chess, or even offer criticism or alternatives. I just think that if both possibilities are valid, then maybe we would all have something valuable to add to our arsenal.

It's like having options, really:

Which should you take? A or B?

I guess I'll take both. Lol.

Development has turned into a kind of generic term in chess I think. To me, development is the idea of making bringing your pieces to squares on the board that maximizes their utility. We tend to forget, myself included, that development is not defined as 'moving piece off original square'. Development of anything is a creative process, a process of becoming, like a picture. H4 and E4 are both opening moves, but only one of these is consistent with the idea of maximizing utility of the pawn and the other pieces. The Kings Gambit example is a good way to show this idea too. The only thing that has moved is pawns, BUT, each pawn move has been an attempt to maximize the utility of the other pieces by creating imbalances for the other pieces to capitalize on.

To understand development, we must focus on the ONLY goal of chess, to checkmate the king. How do we checkmate the king? Well, we attack him with more force than he defends himself with, and the fatal strike succeeds. Everything we do on the chessboard is (or should be) an attempt to create this imbalance in force so that we may conquer our foe. Each opening arrives at this problem a different way, be it an outright assault on the king right off, or subtle manouvering of pieces to gain dominance. This is where titled players are our superiors, the majority of their moves are focused on this task. The amateurs (myself included), crudely hack away at each other, but more oft than not, we are not in tune with what the truth is on the board. My own game is faulting in that I do not have my fundamentals down pat. I think a lot of us may know of chess, but we do not truly know chess. It is certainly why I am still a Class C player! It is important for us to throw our hands up and say "WHY?" every once in a while. When I am studying, I want proof, and I want reason! Seek out the answer, seek out YOUR answer! We need to focus on the mechanics of winning, and every move we make needs to be examined and tested for its worth. I have seen and played many a move which was quite fancy that did absolutely nothing towards winning! So development is defined as the growth of the pieces, our best attempt to extract all of the power out of the piece so that it can engage the enemy in our attempt to obtain that winning imbalance of power.

"To understand development, we must focus on the ONLY goal of chess, to checkmate the king. How do we checkmate the king? Well, we attack him with more force than he defends himself with, and the fatal strike succeeds." 

 

In Silman's "The Amateur Mind" he wrote a chapter titled "The Curse of the Mindless King Hunter", where he says "Everyone likes to attack the opponent's King. If it works, you get a quick win with a lot of flash. However, it drives me to distraction when a player tries to do this without any regard for the particulars of the position. The amateur must learn tha you have to do what the position calls for, not what you want to do! This means that you may be the finest attacker of all time, however, if the position calls for a queenside attack against a weak pawn then that is what you should do."

 

You need to read the entire idea I was conveying. Your queenside attack against a weak pawn would be a step towards creating a force imbalance, which at one point in time will be directed toward the king to finish the game. The mindless king hunter does not understand this nuance of the game.... I do. As chess players we must always keep the end goal in mind so that we can be sure all of our chess moves are in accordance with that goal. There are many games where a player may be making fantastic strides in pawn gobbling, only to find out that the other pieces were busy overtaking his king. I am not offering up such simple advice as to attack the king at all times, but more precisely we must be constantly looking to achieve that superiority of force.

The mindless king hunter does not understand this nuance of the game.... I do.

 

I know. Just a caution for others reading this thread.

 

"Each player with little bit of knowledge of chess all understands centre control/pawn structure/king safety/development/mobility and what not helps to achieve that goal."

I actually still don't understand center control and pawn structures even in isolation. These are surprisingly deep concepts with many nuances.

I think that as a chess player begins to learn more and more, then the term "developement" begins to convey more and more to chess player. Is it a lousy term? Yes, most of the time. It does not in and of itself communicate directly to the chess board in the way most people mean it too. But there is enough built around the term that learning its meaning in context happens very rapidly.

This question is so much more profound than most reader realise! Carry this question with you if you wish to be a better player, and don't let it go! Ready for it?

What is the difference between developing a piece and moving a piece?

To develop something is to bring it to existance! So we must study our fundamentals (i.e. the mechanics of the pieces: abilities/limitations, how different situations/positions empower/disempower our pieces, how tactics create imbalances of force, etc.). The reason we are not masters is because we have not learned our fundamentals. Chessplayers as a group, I feel, are working backwards in learning. We jump head first into the chess beast and we try to disassemble it. How wrong we are!! We need to start with the bare-bones ideas behind the object of the game, and then learn the basic tools to achieve this objective. Bobby Fischer himself said that he never studied moves, he studied ideas! My dear chess players, please listen to my words and the words of the great masters!! Start from scratch, learn the basics, then assemble these ideas into your own chess theory. You will free yourself from dogmatic thought, you will no longer be shaking your head like a bobblehead doll when you read game analysis, you will be thinking!!! Prove ideas to yourself, question everything!! Ask WHY at every chance you get. Ok mr GM, you are so mighty.....so WHY is white winning...what does that mean to me? Be unrelenting in your quest for chess truth.

Chessroshi wrote:

What is the difference between developing a piece and moving a piece?

---

First let me say this is by far the most useful thread I have read in some time here in the forums. Excellent posts.

Second, chessroshi's question is a good one. Developing a piece has a lot to do with harmonizing the different principles we know about chess. Any fool can regurgitate the countless lessons on occupying the center (i.e., Knights before bishops... etc) but knowing when one of these principles takes precedence over the other is very important in chess progression. All too often I make moves based on the first principle that comes to mind. But great chess players often times make moves that seem contrary to general chess principles.

What is happening is the novice is applying the basic principles to the position, but the complexity of the position is such that great moves or... "correct moves" require deeper principles to be adhered to.

One "general principle" that is all too often treated more like a commandment is the "capture toward the center". I find myself capturing toward the center on general principle, only to analyze the position later and see tactical threats available had I captured the other direction.

Chess development seems very much about general principles, but the deeper we go into the game, the more principles we have to juggle and prioritize. Analysis becomes paramount. General principles exist to guide our analysis, and to help point the direction to where we should begin analyzing. Great chess moves are hardly ever based on General principles alone, but without general principles we wouldn't ever be in the position to make great chess moves.

 

Ziryab, The quote is just a bit clearer in context and with a diagram. However, Lasker makes a classic mistake in teaching. His example is too simple. Maybe it's not clear to some level of chess players, but I think an average tournament player would laugh at that position. I'm trying to learn how to make chess moves in equal positions.

Development usually refers to activating the pieces in the opening. It is the objective of moving pieces from their start squares to more central posts where their mobility is increased. The principle of keeping the pieces active operates throughout the game.  Y'all are making a mountain out of a mole hill !

Loomis wrote: Ziryab, The quote is just a bit clearer in context and with a diagram. However, Lasker makes a classic mistake in teaching. His example is too simple. Maybe it's not clear to some level of chess players, but I think an average tournament player would laugh at that position. I'm trying to learn how to make chess moves in equal positions.

---

 That part of the text is from the beginning of the book. Its purpose is to set out a fundamental principle that he will then build upon through more detailed study of the opening, middlegame, and ending. His book is not aimed at today's average tournament player, but to beginners.

 

Two paragraphs from the preface will serve to clarify his intent:

THE large majority of chess players who would like to improve
their game, have not the necessary opportunity of pitting
themselves against players of master-strength, or at least of
obtaining the desired instruction from personal intercourse with
them. It is for such players that the present work is intended.
The books on which the learner has to rely hardly ever serve his
purpose, being mostly little more than a disjointed tabulation of
numberless opening variations, which cannot be understood without
preliminary studies, and consequently only make for confusion. In
the end the connection between the various lines of play may
become clear, after the student has made an exhaustive study of
the subject, but very few would have either the time or the
inclination for such prolonged labour.

Therefore another shorter and less empirical way must be found in
which to acquire the understanding of sound play. My system of
teaching differs from the usual ones, in that it sets down at the
outset definite elementary principles of chess strategy by which
any move can be gauged at its true value, thus enabling the
learner to form his own judgment as to the manoeuvres under
consideration. In my opinion it is absolutely ESSENTIAL to follow
such strategical principles, and I go so far as to assert that
such principles are in themselves SUFFICIENT for the development
and conduct of a correct game of chess.

 

For those interested in Lasker's book, the entire text is available as a free download from Project Gutenberg.

Loomis wrote:

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.

---

 Indeed, most of the available moves at all times are bad. In the strating position, for example, each player has twenty legal moves. For the absolute beginner, probably only one or two are worth consideration (1.e4 and 1.d4 for White). The developing positional player that has reached average club strength might add two more, 1.c4 and 1.Nf3. In recent games of some importance, I have played two others, 1.g3 and 1.f4. Yet, every possible move must be considered in our evaluation of the starting position.

We find twenty legal moves from the starting position. After 1.e4, White's mobility increases to twenty-nine against 1...e5 and thirty against almost everything else (1...d5 and 1...f5 increase White's mobility to thirty-one). 

Heisman defines three types of mobility: Actual Mobility, Potential Mobility, and Global Mobility.

Actual Mobility -- The number of legal moves a piece can make at any given time in a particular position.

Potential Mobility -- The number of squares to which a piece could move from a particular square if the board was empty.

Global Mobility -- The total number of squares to which a piece could move during a game given unlimited tempos. 

(Heisman, Elements of Positional Evaluation, 35)

Let's consider the heart of chess strategy--the imbalances in the struggle of knight versus bishop. The knight's potential global mobility is twice that of a bishop. The knight can reach every square on the board, while the bishop only those of a particular color. On the other hand, the knight's potential mobility ranges from two to eight, while the bishop's ranges from seven to thirteen.

Consider a position from one of my online games:

 

Black has a bishop and pawn for a knight, but the bishop's actual mobility and actual global mobility are sharply reduced by the pawn chain. White's knight on c3 fares little better, for if it moves, Black's pawns become mobile.

 

Of course, in this particular position a tactic presents itself. Tactics must be examined first.

 

Heisman notes, "evaluation often involves the tail end of the thinking process: one realizes that there are no more tactics possible in the position, then asks 'Who is winning?' Computer programmers call this situation 'quiescent evaluation'. Good quantifiable elements are essential to computer quiescent evaluation" (33-34).

 

In this position, both kings have roughly the same potential global mobility. However, the tactics that present themselves will dramatically alter this relationship. White's sacrifice will mobilize his king. Of course, the white pawns also become mobile, and their mobility might prove the decisive factor. 

More analysis of the position from my 2004 game against Unbekannt:

 

Loomis wrote:

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.

---

 I play too much blitz. Sometimes I cannot lose, and sometimes I lose game after game. Analysis of my play during these losing streaks usually reveals that my efforts are transparent and one-dimensional. I get a single idea in my head about how to proceed, and usually it fails.

 

Heisman:

"Flexibility consists of keeping one's options open; having many alternate paths. ...

There are two types of flexibility: piece and plan.

...

Piece flexibility includes flexibility of both individual pieces and groups of pieces. Flexibility does not imply high mobility, but rather a wide range of plausible ways to maneuver.

...

Kotov gives an excellent introduction to plan flexibility when he discusses 'plan following' in his excellent work, Think Like a Grandmaster. Although it is a common motif in chess to 'stick to the plan,' it is usually beneficial to have alternate routes to his goals." (39-40)