Good and bad squares

After realizing why the center is so important in chess, I decided to write a little article with a quantitative explanation for this for beginners (and for myself). It's called "Good and bad squares". Have a look you, and let me know what you think! Comments are most welcome.  

Here it is: Good and bad squares. 

And have a nice day!

By the way, why are we told to place the pawns in the center? After looking at this, it seems wicked. A pawn doesn't have more mobility on d4 or e4, than on b4 or g4. But a Bishop is much better on e4, than e. g. b4. From a mobility perspective it makes more sense to place the pawns so they defend the center, rather than occupy it. After all, for every pawn we place on a center square, we take away a good square for a Bishop or a Knight. Any thoughts?

When you control the center you control the board, and you can only control it with pawns in the opening, because if you put a bishop or a knight in the center, the opponents pawns will just kick it.
But if you can make a hot spot for your knight or bishop (mostly knight), so that a opponent pawn cant kick it, it will be awesome as you point out.

Let me show you:

Nice explanation. I get your point, and it makes sense not to place Bishops and Knight in the center in the opening. However, I didn't mean to suggest placing Bishops and Knights on the center squares in the opening, but rather not placing pawns there either. It other words playing c4 and/or f4, in combination with maybe d3 and d4 - as White. 

PS. Hvordan står det til i Danmark? 

You have to fight for the center by putting pawns there, if you just give it to your opponent, he will always get a space advantage, and the mobiliy of his pieces will kill you.
The exeption is of course the hyper modern openings. In these openings you wait fighing for the center and just get out your pieces, and then at some point counterattack with a pawn break to challenge the opponents space advantage.

[Danish] Det går helt fint her i Danmark, der er en masse gode turneringer ;)

i have learned in my beginner days that a good front is desirable and that officer behind the pawn is more advantageous but sometimes there plays especially in defense  that is , the the officer in front of the pawn is more desirable but that is also a case to case basis that will depend on the position that is winnable and tenable. there are no permanent , and stable position, just like playing cards we shuffle our position or chess pieces according to its use for attack or defense so much evaluations is done for winning position not losing position. just by being careful  does not bring good.we have to be brave sometimes to improve our method of play .,there also exist some higher variation if we could grasp upon as  price for courage, so enjoy your fear to see other lines of play.

Another good explanation, Simon.... Thanks. But my point is: if we have placed a pawn on a square we later want to use for one of our Knights or Bishops, then we'll have to move to pawn from there first (using a tempo). If we instead dominate a central square by thretening it with one (or two) pawns, and maybe some pieces, then we can later move one of our pieces to that square, without having to use a tempo first getting the pawn away from there. 

It's just a thought. 

[Er der en masse turneninger i Danmark? Det vidste jeg ikke. Jeg skal til min første OTB turnening om et par uger!] 

Well, you always have to keep in mind the opponents pawns kicking your knight/bishop.

[Jah, jeg spiller OTB hver tirsdag og hver weekend indtil jul, der er helt fyldt ud. Og så læser jeg også en del skakbøger, så jeg får spillet/studeret en masse skak :) Glæd dig til at spille OTB turneringer, det er noget helt andet :)]

Simon, I agree. 

[Jeg deltog i én OTB turnering da jeg var knægt, i en lille provinsby. Det er laaang tid siden, dengang Bent Larsen var kongen. Den sidste tid har jeg brugt cirka 60 timer om ugen på skak, så håber det snart begynder at rykke. ]