Development Not an End in Itself

When one has a choice of recaptures, the one that also develops a piece is often superior. However, the ultimate justification for developing a piece is that from its new post, that piece would better support a player's middlegame plan than if the piece were on a different square.

How should one choose a sensible middlegame plan? First, look for a sector of the board where your pawns as a group are further advanced than the opponent's are. This gives you more space for pieces. Once your pieces are massed in that sector, you would seek to exchange at least one pair of pawns so that your superior forces could engage the opponent's.

The value of a space advantage conferred by the pawn structure is well-illustrated by the recent RHP game (Game 15188836) between MisterCat (1772) and TheBigKat (2338).

In the position



White has just played 19.Nx(N)h6. How should Black recapture?

That would depend on Black's middlegame plan. So, start by examining the pawn structure:



For each file, determine which side, if any, has more space along that file (where "space" means the number of ranks before encountering a pawn).

* a-file: no space edge for either player (1 rank up to each side's pawn).
* b-file: White has more space, with 6 ranks to Black's 1 rank.
* c-file: no space edge for either player (2 ranks up to each side's pawn).
* d-file: Black has more space, with 5 ranks to White's 2 ranks.
* e-file: no space edge for either player (3 ranks up to each side's pawn).
* f-file: Black has more space, with 2 ranks to White's 1 rank.
* g-file: Black has more space, with 3 ranks to White's 2 ranks.
* h-file: Black has more space, with 5 ranks to White's 1 rank.

Where is Black's space advantage most pronounced (that is, the greatest difference between the number of ranks available to Black and the number of ranks available to White)? This would be along the h-file, which gives Black 4 (5 minus 1) more available ranks than White has. Next-most pronounced would be along the d-file, where Black has 3 (5 minus 2) more available ranks than White has.

Black is already exerting pressure along the d-file (in fact, attacking White's pawn there), and this should be continued. In addition, Black should seek to open the kingside, where Black has much more space. This would entail creating pawn tension there, and then releasing it at the moment when Black's pieces could best profit from the resulting open lines.

What kingside pawn(s) can Black move so as to create tension?

Being that White's e-pawn is fixed for the moment at e4, advancing Black's f-pawn to to f5 would ensure the creation of pawn tension. The resulting pawn structure would be



If White were to play exf5... and Black were to recapture (with a piece), yielding the pawn structure



which side would benefit more?

To answer this, let's examine how this pawn exchange would affect each side's space in the e- and f-files. Along the e-file, White would now have 4 ranks to Black's 3 ranks. However, along the f-file, Black would now have 6 ranks to White's 1 rank. For the two files combined, Black would have 9 ranks of space to White's 5 ranks, a difference of 4 ranks. Before playing ...f5, Black had only 1 more rank of space along these two files combined. So, considering the pawn structure in isolation, it would appear that the exchange of pawns at f5 would favor Black.

Let us now examine the positions after Black recaptured at h6 and then played ...f5 (for the moment, disregarding White's intervening move). First, after 19...Bxh6 and 20...f5.



Thanks to 19...Bxh6, the f8 square is available to a Black rook (and the h-rook would be preferred, allowing the d8-rook to continue pressuring White's pawn on that file). But what is the bishop doing at h6? The c1/h6 diagonal is obstructed by Black's g-pawn. Moreover, this bishop had great mobility along the a3/f8 diagonal, where it might eventually have gone to c5 (to control the d4 square) or to a3 and then b2 (to attack White's c-pawn).

In contrast, here's the position after 19...Rxh6 and 20...f5.



Although the h-rook no longer has access to the f8-square, it can nonetheless reach the f-file (at the f6-square). The advantage of having the rook "leading" Black's major pieces along the f-file will become apparent in the game continuation, which includes a variation where Black threatens a White pawn at f3 only because Black's rook would be making the first capture at that square. Also, Black's bishop has retained the splendid a3/f8 diagonal noted above.

Finally, we'd need to consider how White's having a 20th move might change things. We will see this in the game continuation after 19...Rxh6 (which was actually played) in the following chess movie.




To sum up, that a move satisfies one or more principles is not sufficient reason to trust it. However, a move that violates one or more principles should be distrusted--by which I mean, not rejected outright, but examined with particular care.

(A list of the threads I've initiated at this forum is available at http://www.davidlevinchess.com/chess/RHP_my_threads.htm .)

Funny, when I read the title I thought it was about ones personal chess development not being an end in itself. Which is IMO also true - at the level of most of us, it's more important to enjoy the game and avoid real mistakes than to necessarily develop a lot. Beyond a certain point, that's an illusion for those who can't spend large amounts of time on it, and taking progress as important in itself can lead to frustration.

Not to say that development is not important, but it's important as an end in itself for professionals, and only as far as it leads to us enjoying the game more for us woodpushers.

Which is a very different kind of development than you meant in your article, which was also enjoyable as usual.

@shallow-blue said
Funny, when I read the title I thought it was about ones personal chess development not being an end in itself.

What might be even funnier is that this interpretation of the word "development" never even occurred to me! If it had, I might have said "Piece Development." On the other hand, my "error" prompted your interesting reply, so maybe it's just as well.

Thanks for taking the time to post this little tutorial. Very well done. Now if I can just find the ability to apply this to my games.

@FMDavidHLevin
Thanks for posting this. I don't think I ever looked at space this methodically as a way to determine a plan. Also looked at the game leading up to this position and thought it was interesting black could have captured d3 but continued with his plan. White then occupied himself trying to deal with the troublesome weakness with Be3 and d4 which just ended up playing into black's hand.

@ktadaddy said
Thanks for taking the time to post this little tutorial. Very well done. Now if I can just find the ability to apply this to my games.

One thought might be to make a habit of looking at the pawn structure whenever studying the opening or playing through master games. Ideally, this would become so ingrained, that considering the pawn structure would naturally occur to a player while competing.

@fmdavidhlevin said
What might be even funnier is that this interpretation of the word "development" never even occurred to me! If it had, I might have said "Piece Development." On the other hand, my "error" prompted your interesting reply, so maybe it's just as well.

Indeed.

On another tack... my woodpusher mind went quite the other way from yours, but with the same ideas behind it.

Black has more space on the king side, therefore black must push there. So, my idea was (was!): take with the bishop, then advance my g-pawn. Swap off my bad bishop for his good. Slowly push through on the king side.

Having read the rest of the article, I now suspect a. that my bishop is not as bad as it seems, especially after I start moving pawns around; b. his bishop is theoretically good, but doesn't do all that much (would be different if he'd played c4, but that would give the black knight a beautiful outpost); and crucially c. playing g4 would lock up the king side and none of the pressure I was hoping for would happen.

Am I right, the second time 'round?

(Another funny thing. When I put this position into the computer, it starts out with my idea, then after half a second or so switches to yours. That should tell us something...)

@shallow-blue said

Having read the rest of the article, I now suspect a. that my bishop is not as bad as it seems, especially after I start moving pawns around; b. his bishop is theoretically good, but doesn't do all that much (would be different if he'd played c4, but that would give the black knight a beautiful outpost); and crucially c. playing g4 would lock up the king side and none of the pressure I was hoping for would happen.

Am I right, the second time 'round?

I'd say that you're on the right track.

@fmdavidhlevin said
I'd say that you're on the right track.

This is my fatal flaw, in general. I can always see the fault in my ideas, afterwards. In the analysis, I can always see where my plans went wrong. And when I walk around the room, I often - not always, but more often than I should - spot the right plan for my club members, often even for players rather better than myself. Just a week ago, I spotted a rook lift which nobody else did until I pointed it out to them. And even he, our club champion, didn't. I did, immediately! But would I see that over the board, on my own board, when I would have to play it? No chance!

I'm a better commentator than I am a player, really. Just as well that my club has a couple of decent players already, and needs a decent commentator as well.