What word to use for development with pawns?

The same could be said for the choice of where to develop pieces: Na1, Nh1, Ra3, Rh3, Ke5, etc.

You have to be careful pushing pawns too far forward early because: 1) they are the only piece that can not move backwards, 2) they can be passed by a bishop or knight, which is usually bad for the pawn pusher 3) other reasons....like loss of proper structure.....but pushing them can be good too: 1) can provide cover for your other pieces to hide behind, 2) can control the center early, 3) can be a psychological or real threat that your opponent feels compelled to answer. The point? Depends on the game/circumstances.

Exactly. I'm trying to be semantically accurate so that I don't get somebody saying, "You used the wrong word!"

I just took a few minutes to look up definitions of "develop" in my computerized books. Although I'm going by the old, standard, Nimzovichian definition...

----------

(p. 4)

S2. A pawn move must not in itself be regarded as a de-

veloping move, but merely as an aid to development.

Nimzovich, Aaron. 1930. My System: A Treatise on Chess. Philadelphia: David McKay Company.

----------

...I was surprised to find that some authors bend that definition. For example, John Emms also includes center pawns in his count of developed units...

----------

(p. 32)

Development Count

A useful marker to see how quickly each side is developing is to perform a devel-

opment count. Each piece that is developed scores a point and I would also count

pawn moves in the centre (they control the centre and allow easy development).

Let's go back to a couple of positions we've recently visited. Taking the previous

example after 6 Bd3:

rn1qkbnr/ppp2ppp/2b1p3/8/3PN3/3B1N2/PPP2PPP/R1BQK2R w kq - 0 1

White's development count is four (three minor pieces and the pawn on d4), while

Black's is two (the bishop on c6 and the pawn on e6), so it could be said that White

is leading 4-2 in development. Notice that the knight on e4 and the bishop on c6

only score one point, even though both pieces have moved twice. Just because a

piece has been moved twice doesn't mean it's going to be more effectively 

placed than one that's moved only once.

Emms, John. 2006. Discovering Chess Openings: Building Opening Skills from Basic Principles. Guildford, CT: The Globe Pequot Press.

----------

...and Chernev even implied that ...e6 is a developing move...

----------

(p. 24)

3...e6

   This is a routine developing move

which serves to maintain the sym-

metry but has the defect of not cross-

ing White's plans.

Chernev, Irving. 1998. Logical Chess: Move by Move. London: Faber & Faber.

----------

...so now we're including pawn moves that aren't even into the center. This is intolerable to me! I need consistency and accuracy, dang it!

Development = minors off the back rank, queen close to home, king to safety, rooks connected on back rank. None of those moves qualify

Note that to develop a bishop, you don't necessarily have to move it. In plenty of Sicilian and KID variations, the ...c8 bishop is much better on c8 than any other square you can move it to.

I didn't find an explicit definition of "development" in my books I just searched, so I don't know if anyone goes into enough detail to specify which types of units to which types of positions qualify as "development," as you have. I haven't done an Internet search yet for definitions, however. Your criteria are logical, of course, but does anybody really say that anywhere? I suspect not, but I could be wrong.

Yes, I'm struggling with this one, too, when one side castles kingside with a missing or advanced f-pawn. I keep notes on positions for when White is fully developed and for when Black is fully developed, and in that case I really haven't decided whether to consider that KR developed yet. Life is rough.

Yeah, that definition is probably just me.

But I don't think anyone counts a knight on the back rank or a king in the middle as a developed piece. Early rook lifts can count, but are pretty rare.

I can't think of any real positions where being head in pawn moves matters. As long as the pieces aren't suffering and the king is safe it should be fine.

From a practical standpoint (playing a chess game well) this is obviously useless - the rook is decently active, and what it means you should do (AKA pushing e5 sometime discourages black from taking, because it would activate the rook) in a real game is all you care about.

From a theoretical standpoint, let's just define development as follows:

*A minor piece or queen is developed if it has moved from its starting square

*A rook is developed if it occupies a half-open or open file, or if it is "lifted". 

An active/effective piece, on the other hand, need not be developed. This definition should be solid enough to account for theoretical stuff.

I think Chernev is using the term loosely, and in any case that Nimzo was twice the player Chernev was 

I learned it as "pawn structure and distribution."

It basically describes the type of structure (i.e; slav, hanging pawns, isolated pawn, backward pawns) which has an effect on how you will play. The distribution describes the pawn islands, majorities,  and stuff like that.

Well, according to some database statistics there is a significant difference at times, when the opponent is given an extra pawn move. In the Sicilian example I gave earlier, White has a choice of 5th moves at the position below, and the move 5. Nxc6 is quite a bit weaker than 5. Nc3, presumably because the knight exchange gives Black an extra pawn move (5...bxc6). As a result of that one poor choice of the second most popular move there, White wins 9.2% fewer games, and Black wins 21.9% more games: quite a significant change in game outcome.

An interesting position is this one which is probably just equal for White even though he's way ahead on the kingside:

I like that, but I'm a computer programmer (among other things) who tentatively expects to program all this someday, so eventually I'm going to need to explain to my idiot savant computer exactly what to do, so that's one reason why I'll need an exact definition eventually.

The pawn formation can facilitate development but, rightly or wrongly, it is rarely considered development in itself.  Personally, part of my "real development," for example with the Caro-Kann, it to put pawns at c6, d5, and e6.  But if I don't get my QB outside the pawn chain before it's trapped behind it when I play e6, then I'm said to be behind in development, and that makes some sense.

Nc3 is a developing move. Nxc6 bolsters black's center and breaks the general chess principal of don't initiate a capture without a good reason.

We're talking about knight moves here, not pawn moves

The choice between two good opening moves is more about the character of the position you're aiming for and less about raw strength. The win percents don't mean a lot, but I do agree Nc3 is better.

Tarrasch used 'tempi' to refer to pawn moves (and every move, really).  Every move takes a turn, or a tempo.  Your pawn moves may be a good use of time or a bad use of time, but they always use a tempo.  Your goal is to maximize your time to achieve your ideal position.  Or, said another way, look for / visualize your ideal position and then figure out if you can reach it with fewer moves (usually unnecessary pawn moves).  If you play e3 and then e4, for instance, is it possible to just play e4, saving that tempo?

Take the following (hypothetical) position:

1.e4 e5 2.Bb5 Nc6 3.Bxc6 dxc6

If we look at this position, White has one tempo to show for his first three moves: his pawn on e4.  Black has two: the pawn on e5 and the pawn on c6.  According to Tarrasch, Black is ahead in time, or tempo count.

Now, not every tempo is a useful tempo.  If White plays 4.a4, it doesn't really do any favours to his position, but it's still a tempo.  If I understand what you are after, you want a term for 'useful pawn moves' or 'necessary pawn moves.'  Such a term does not exist, and it would be very hard to adequately define, because different pawn moves are useful for a variety of reasons.  a6 in the Ruy Lopez is a useful pawn move, as is a6 in the Sicilian Kan, but it's for two different reasons, and it wouldn't really improve understanding to label both of them with an identical, more specific term.

I would suggest thinking in terms of time.  If you end up with an extra pawn move that helps your position and gives nothing to your opponent, credit it as a gain in time and move forward.

Why not simply invent your own word - say "kaffa." Then you can things like "Black sacrifices a pawn, and in return he is kaffa." You can avoid a lot of verbiage that way.

First, that principle about not initiating a capture without a good reason is pretty general. It sounds to me like it's trying to combine two pieces of wisdom into one: (1) Don't exchange units unless your position (pawn structure, piece placement, material balance, etc.) benefits as a result; (2) Don't allow your opponent to get ahead in "development." Therefore that advice is not accurate enough to specify reasoning against playing 5. Nxc6, as far as I can see.

Second, I *was* talking about a pawn move in the above example: 5...bxc6. Notice that if you were to physically reach in and yank both interacting knights off the board at the start of the 5th move, and compare the resulting position to the position I showed after Black's 5th move, the position is virtually identical *except* Black has gained a tempo, evidenced by his ability to get in an extra pawn move--the pawn advanced to c6. I'm claiming that this extra pawn move is what boosts Black's winning percentage by over 20%.

Position if knights are artificially removed before move #5:

 Position if White exchanges his knight on move #5, and Black recaptures:

The basic idea is the white knight moves 3 times, Nf3-d4-c6, and is traded for a piece that only moved once... this is a little misleading here because Nxd4 was a recapture, but anyway, that's the idea. Of course not all pieces that move many times are wroth more, but also Nd4 is centralized and has more influence than Nc6 I think we could say.

I'll claim this is what's showing up in the stats, but also I'm guessing the players who choose Nxc6 are out-rated by their opponents, or in any case for one reason or another are happy with a draw. When white out-rates his opponent he's more likely to not deviate from mainline early, as well as play more enterprisingly with a move like Nc3.

---

As for the difference in diagrams, I agree, the pawn is moved from b7 to c6. I have to stress how double edged pawn moves are though. This is better seen as a change in structure. The biggest differences I would note are the blocked c file, and the isolated a pawn (as well as increased central control).

Was it Tarrasch or someone else... anyway the quote is something like "examine carefully the ledger of a pawn move"