Simplifying Overprotection
Sort:
If you protect your pawn by an equal number of defenders to your opponents attackers then all your defenders are immobile, move one and you shall hang the pawn, but overprotect the pawn by adding just one more defender than your opponent has attackers and suddenly, every defending piece is mobile
I think overprotection confuses a lot of people (and it doesn't help that Nimzowitsch wrote about it pretty confusingly and seemed to ascribe to it quasi-magical powers).
How about simplifying it thus:
Overprotection is the process of protecting a potential weakness, usually a pawn or a square, with more defenders than strictly necessary. This is done as a prophylactic measure and in order to facilitate the mobility of the defenders.
An example might be a hypothetical IQP position where one has the IQP defended only as many times as it is attacked. Here every defending unit is tied down to the defense of the pawn, and this restricts the mobility of the defenders and encourages the opponent to apply more pressure. But overprotect the pawn by adding just one more defender and, suddenly, every defending piece is mobile again (any one piece can now move as needed without hanging the pawn.) And also, for the opponent, adding further attackers to the pawn, even if possible, is not so attractive as the defense is a tempo ahead.
Now Nimzo mainly spoke about overprotection in the context of central strong points, but I have always (mis?)used the term more generally.
Is this a good simplification? Or am I missing important nuances? Or am I missing the boat entirely?