Improving One’s Position Is…

The starting position is symmetrical, but not without weaknesses. In particular, the squares f2 and f7 are weak, but also neither player has any substantive control of the board.

White plays 1.e4 with the purpose of assaulting the weakness on f7. Although this move slightly weakens f3, e3, and d3, it opens lines for pieces that can assert their power through much of the board (with particular attention to f7) and stakes a claim on such important squares as f5 and d5.

Black has a number of choices that strive for equilibrium and prevent White's aggressive strategy from developing into a winning advantage.

1.e5 mimics White's plan and holds the advantage of the first move to a single tempo.

1.c5 prepares to meet the first player's threats with counter-threats.

1.d5 undermines the center and creates an imbalance in the pawn structure.

1.e6 lets the aggressor know that threats against f7 are futile, but blocks Black's light-squared bishop. If White aggressive hopes are pathological, Black may gain an advantage, but with vibrant positional play, Black may suffer a bit and expect to defend accurately for many moves to maintain relative equality.

There are sixteen more possibilities for Black. Although none immediately render the game winning for White, most are sufficiently weak that a series of such moves will represent the failure of Black's reasoning that White seeks.

I admit, this is completely nit-picking, but I think 1. e4 doesn't weaken e3. It probably makes it just slightly stronger since it is now within white's territory.

Let's call it a typo. Thanks for the catch.

Well then we have 1 degree of seperation.  One of my jazz mentors is a fellow by the name of Ray Brown.  He was the "jazz chair" trumpeter in Kenton's band in the early 70's.  He's the guy who taught me much of what I know about jazz theory and also the who'd helped me here and there with college teaching jobs here in California.

Polydiatonic is a word I invented to express they way I view how most post 40's jazz works.  In otherwords it's diatonic, but the nature of the harmonic movement interms of key structure is polytonal.   So, from moment to moment it's diatonic (with exceptions of course) but the constant modulations makes it polydiatonic, thus my handle :)

I received a very helpful e-mail from NM Dan Heisman and he understands that there will not be 100% agreement between good chess players on this topic.

1. It's perhaps more than a point of view. Mathematicians seem to see it as fact. Dan Heisman got his bachelor's degree in mathematics, however, he went to someone more advanced in math to take a look at his article, Harvard Professor of Mathematics Noam Elkies. Professor Elkies also has a USCF master’s title. For further reading on how mathematics applies to this topic and also what Steinitz thought, I encourage you to read a very short article by Heisman at this link: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles358.pdf

2. This is my current understanding. A person cannot make the position superior, but one's position can become superior as a result of an error from the other person. Also, the position by itself cannot get better or worse. One chess player must make the position worse for the position to get better for the other player. I believe that this idea all hinges on the premise that the game begins with equal chances for each player to win.

This quote might help clarify what I believe about White's position at the beginning. I don't see the word winning and the word initiative as synonymous. White does have the initiative, but both White and Black have equal chances of winning. Why would anyone want to play chess if White always has a better chance of winning? 

"As another example, take the initial position of a game. Consider what happens when White plays 1.e4. Indeed, afterwards, White has more central control and greater piece mobility, but in return he has given up the move. If 1.e4 is White’s best move, then playing it has reached the potential of the position, nothing more, and White’s position has not improved."  -  NM Dan Heisman

So, this is my question: Does this way of thinking about things have any bearing whatsoever on how to play a good game of chess?  I think not.  To me this is just a sort of an "ivory tower" discussion of, I guess,  game theory.   Where is the "meat" in this discussion?  How, in any way, is this mathematical "understanding" going to help anyone play better?  And, if it doesn't then what really is the point?

There is none.

"Where is the meat in this discussion?" That remeinds me of an old Wendy's commercial - "Where's the beef!"

@polydiatonic - I like your handle. Thanks for the explanation.

Here's the meat of the discussion and why it's important to understand in order to play better chess. After reading pages 63-64 for the 100th time or more from "Elements of Positional Evaulation", I felt very excited to share what I had learned - like a son who wants to tell his dad what he just accomplished. Moreover, I was wondering if anyone else saw chess in this way. I later discovered that it can cause a spirited debate!

The meat, the point and the importance.

2.7 Time

"The last two elements, 'time' and 'speed', are not static, but dynamic-they involve the motion of the pieces. However, neither is tactical, and thus are positional evaluation elements. ... An important bit of 'chess logic' emphasises the correct importance of time. This theorem, based upon game theory, states that 'One's position cannot be better after a move that it was before!' While at first seemingly illogical, this theorem is one of the most important things a chess analyst should know..."   - Dan Hesiman

"this theorem is one of the most important things a chess analyst should know"   That got my attention. 

The biggest advantage I enjoy over my other beginning chess opponents is the understanding of tempo, which many beginners still don't grasp. Nine out of ten times, whether I play White or Black, I am way ahead in development because I understand the importance of time, whereas my opponents waste time.

This "ivory tower" stuff takes chess one step further for me. Somewhere in my first year of playing chess I wanted to quit because it seemed like the better one gets, the more likely it is that the game will become terribly boring with drawn games. The really good players rarely hang pieces, so it's just a handshake at the end with no checkmate! Ugh!

Silman helped me get over this hump for a time when he opened my mind to the idea of imbalances. So, I went about emulating the playing style of Karpov, at a much reduced playing strength!

Finally, Heisman surprisingly lifted the last bit of depression over this drawish game called chess with what I feel is a deeper appreciation and understanding of time. It's difficult to articulate, but my playing has gotten better, and I do believe it's because of this new perspective.

Whether a theoretical discussion has bearing on practical skills depends immensely on the level of intelligence one brings to bear on the game. For the vast majority of chessplayers of average intelligence, it is of minimal value. For the "talented tenth" (to rip off W.E.B. DuBois' old term), theorie is always already praxis.

Actually, I always thought it was common sense that a game could only be one from mistakes.

When you put it that way, I got an immense amount from the discussion in terms of practical skills. For those who didn't benefit, not to worry...it was your low intelligence to blame.