Different Chess Theory/Judgement

I would ask the more experienced chess players what different "theories" exist in chess, and who were their main voice. Things like Capablanca's theory of simplification, or the Modern/Hypermodern theory that wishes to develop pieces first, then fight for the center, or the theory that we should fight for the center from move 1, and so on and so forth...?

I think you're mixing up heuristics with schools of chess (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_chess).

 I think the best way to think about the game is just as material and piece activity, with those being the only factors of the game. 

This is a major simplification of chess, but it's good for beginners who don't need to know more in order to rapidly improve. 

No one dogmatically subscribes to the theory the way they did in the early 1900s. Today's players are practical. It doesn't matter if it's ugly, it only matters if it works.

Of course the opposite is true. It doesn't matter of the  engine recommends it, because sometimes the engine is impractical. It only matters if the moves work in a real OTB game between humans.

If you're looking for a shortcut, there is none. You have to play thousands of games, and review thousands of mistakes.

If you're looking for a fundamental logic that ties ideas together, it's as Cherub said: piece activity. Control all the squares around the enemy king (including the square it stands on) and you win. Even the piece value are based on average mobility.

The opening principals (including the center) are not useful in and of themselves, they're a means to an end i.e. piece activity.

Of course this doesn't only mean aggressive "active" play is good. World class defenders, positional players, and strategists make use of static advantages (like pawn structure) and may pursue their play slowly, but there is always play to eventually pursue. No good player tolerates a completely passive position.

So promoting pawns in a superior endgame is not a relevant consideration because no pieces are involved?

Yeah, that's a little confusing I guess... when chess players use the term "piece."

Also my use of "play" isn't well defined (even though I know in my mind what I mean).

Some people even call this activity "space" which makes it more confusing, because there are two different kinds of space chess players may talk about.

By piece activity I basically just mean the number of controlled squares. Knights, rooks, bishops, but also pawns and kings. All chessmen... "chessmen activity" if you like heh.

Some people call this space... although I think of space as the squares behind the pawns that you're able to freely use to maneuver or occupy.

(p. 183)
Piece   A king, a queen a rook, a bishop, or a knight, but not a pawn.

(p. 152)
Man   Any of the 32 chess units that constitute a chess set. A short-
ened version of the sexist term "chessman."

(p. 256)
Unit   Any chess figure, whether a piece or a pawn.

Pandolfini, Bruce. 1995. Chess Thinking. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Maybe because I don't remember it ever coming up, but I don't remember kings ever being referred to as pieces. I'd define "piece" as any non-pawn and non-king.

Also it's weird you're quoting to me from some glossary out of a book. Of course I know pawns aren't pieces...

Unfortunately those book definitions are already established and it's not within our power to change them. However, you can always create your own, new definitions. I sort of like "nonking," actually. "His nonkings were swarming around me but his king was still exposed to my bishop pair..."

I'm not necessarily quoting to *you*. Maybe one of the previous posters used a term that had a meaning they didn't intend.

One reason I feel it's important to make a distinction in this thread is that the Soviet School / Soviet Hegemony advocates piece (in the standard definition) mobility, which is clearly different than the Hypermodern School, which essentially advocates pawn mobility by not placing pawns in the center early, so unless one distinguishes between the two concepts, these schools of thought run together and make it even more difficult to answer the OP's question.

Everything except for stalemate can be explained through piece activity + material. 

I explain all your objections in my one and only blog post, but I'll summarize here:

*Pawns help or hinder piece activity - pawn structure, space, mobility of pawns, weak pawns, etc.

*A passed pawn represents a conversion of pure material into much more material *and* piece activity. Passed pawns also force the opponent to deactivate their pieces to stop the pawn. 

Pawn promotion is a special move, since without it, it would be very very hard to win a game. It thus has a special purpose, but nevertheless it's still about material + activity. 

You don't need to complicate factors by introducing more things than necessary. A lot of players do this for some reason, thinking that more rules = better results, but the opposite is usually true. 

I'm not saying that this is all you need to know in order to play well, but to understand chess, for a beginner, it's enough to transition to intermediate level. 

And since everything in chess can be explained through piece activity + material, it's why I think that Stalemate should not result in a draw, since it's the lack of mobility and power of one side, typically a very bad thing, that gives that side a good result. 

It's counterintuitive to the entire nature of the game, which is a game of domination. 

The purpose of rules isn't to describe a game consistent to a central idea. The purpose is to create a game rich in strategy and tactics. For this purpose the rules evolved over time to their present state. If stalemate were a win, many endgames would become trivial, and so in the middlegame a larger importance would be place on material, reducing strategy overall.

To answer the OP's question: At your level, you should just focus on moves that do 4 things:

*Keep your material

*Win your opponent's material

*Get your pieces as active as possible

*Restrict your opponent's pieces

Note that the first 2 imply tactical shots, defensive and offensive, while the bottom two represent positional play. 

For instance, doubling an opponent's pawns may weaken the pawns, helping with gaining material later. More often though, the doubled pawns restrict the opponent's pieces, since the pawns can't move out of the way as fast. Maybe those doubled pawns leave weak squares behind, so the king can infiltrate (activity). 

If doubling pawns does not serve either of those purposes, then it's simply not a weakness. 

This is much better than the mindset of many players who know a lot of complicated positional rules, but who avoid doubled pawns a lot through some unconscious fear. 

I mean, king activity doesn't exist in the middlegame... it's bad even. Other than maybe the f1 rook (when white castles kingside) you want defenders close to the king (I guess I just mean the pawns, the friendly rook usually helps box in the king during an attack).

As for hypermodern theory advocating mobile pawns, I'm not aware of that. I thought the idea was something like putting pawn in the center early created objects of attack.

That is true, and it's why Stalemate is an acceptable idea - a "twist" to the game that makes it interesting. 

However, if I had it my way, Stalemate would be checkmate, which is just my personal preference. 

It's easy to say rules don't matter after you've learned them and their exceptions. Beginners need something more to hold on to than keep pieces active. Sometimes doubled pawns are good, sometimes bad, and sometimes they don't matter, but in general it's a defect that needs to be compensated for by piece activity.

....ooooooooook! 

وش ام السالفه

Read the first few posts and for beginners, cherub's first post sums up the most important points. That being said, I find that as I get older I'm becoming more of a grinder. I don't care as much about creating quick tactical flurries unless my opponent makes a mistake and it's a concrete variation. Fine wrote in a few books about the process of development, strangulation (not sure how he worded it), breakthrough and destruction. Basically, deprive your opponent of good options, build your forces up appropriately, wait for the right moment and strike when your opponent doesn't have the means to defend. It's a simple thought process it took years to truly "get"