What is the concept of a weak square?

Just saying that a weak square is a square that isn't defended by a pawn seems a bit narrow-minded to me.  Is that to say that as the game goes on, and there is more space behind your pawns, that all of those squares behind your position are weak, even if they can be defended by a minor or major piece?  Or even if your opponent can't exploit it?  Just because a nice outpost can't be defended by a pawn doesn't mean anything if a player is unable to exploit it.  As Samky01 stated, "chess is a dynamic game."  More goes into whether or not a square is weak than just a pawn being able to protect it.  I wrote my post earlier and now (and presumably Samky01) because I want people who are new to the game to get a feel for how much goes into decision making on the board.  I'm quite alright if I'm disagreed with, so long as somebody who is actually interested in weak squares appreciates this.

Oops, I didn't realize I was baited so easily by Jimmykay.

------------------------

I agree with Prudentia, I don't mind discussion as long as someone finds the discussion useful.  It's hard to strike a balance between over generalization and too much information.

Good information. Would love to see example positions!

I was going to supply some examples, but then this post derailed into "I know you are, but what am I" as most posts here do.  Then i lost interest.

Post it anyway! Useful posts are always welcome. I've been forum digging for information, tips, book suggestions etc, and wade through useless posts for the few good ones.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Chess_Strategy/Weak_and_strong_squares

you should...you were the first to provide the correct definition of "weak square", so I presume you know what you are talking about.

White's seemingly textbook use of black's "weak" squares e5 and e6 on moves 12-14 lead to a terrible position.  It's also a humorous turn of fortunes as it's actually white's dark squares that hang him.  Black's dark squares in the final position, with pawns on light squares and no dark square bishop to oppose white's, aren't weak... in fact they're not even worth mentioning.

For a whole book of these gets Watson's Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy (I opened the book to a random page and found this example about attacking a pawn chain at the front instead of the base).  For examples from your own games (when principals lead you astray) simply get a coach, and they'll point out how everything you thought you knew was wrong

(Ok, not everything of course, but the point is chess isn't so simple.  You can't reduce it to rules of thumb.)

I think the best way to illustrate the idea of weak squares is this:

After the opening phaes of the game is completed:

Control the enter

Develop minor pieces

Castle

Connect the rooks

Now...look at every square along the 5th and 6th ranks.  Any square that cannot be defended by a pawn is a weak square.

The same idea applies to weak pawns. 

Thanks!

I plan to get a coach next year after I've saved some: )

Good luck to you.  If you ever have any questions please feel free to ask. 

Probably for another thread. I'm always full of questions.. :)

To summarize: the definition is weak squares are weak if they cannot be defended by pawn(s)

Then there are the exceptions and the exceptions to the exceptions. But, you have to know a lot of chess to know these in order to analyze the position and come up with the right move(s).

You have to begin somewhere and knowing the elements of what makes up a weak square is a good start in order to recognize it in your opponent's, as well as your own position. The rest has to do with the rest of your chess knowledge and recognizing other weaknesses. That is why in my initial post #4 I wrote about the principle of 2 weaknesses.

Right, weakness can many times be defended with good play, but two weaknesses is very difficult and many times impossible to (like endgame). Good point!