p.7 A change is necessary! For many years chess players have relied on a
loosely knit, confused set of ways to non-tactically evaluate a chess position. People programming chess on computers find
that quantifying this evaluation in the form of a "scoring function" results in a difficult algorithm, which is experiencing
poor results. Programs relying heavily on evaluation don't play much better (if at all) than those with just "brute force,"
and very little evaluation. No wonder! But such difficulties may be overcome. The purpose of this introduction is
to lay the foundation for a new evaluation theory
p.13 the positional player tries to win by increasing positional pressure until the opponent "breaks
down", allowing a simple tactical denouement [resolution].
p.26 there is no "better" way of getting a cramped and passive position than by aiming only at development
[Botvinnik, One Hundred Selected Games, p. 144]... When considering a doubled pawn's effect, one must also
consider other factors... [such as] mobility, vulnerability, and flexibility.
p.30 Mobility - This is a key part of the theory. One could construct
a reasonable argument that mobility is so important that all other elements can be examined with mobility as a basis.
The concepts considered as part of mobility are therefore the most important and basic of all the elements for understanding
positional evaluation... We will define three types of mobility:
1) Actual mobility - The number of legal moves a piece can make at any given time in a
game.
2) Potential mobility - The number of squares to which a piece could move from a given
square if the board was empty.
3) Global mobility - The total number of squares to which a piece could move during a game.
Actual and potential global mobility can be defined:
3A) Actual global mobility is the total number of squares that a piece could legally get
to if it had possession of unlimited tempos in a given position.
3B) Potential global mobility is the total number of squares a piece can move to on an empty board...
An understanding of mobility may rank second only to the understanding of tactics.
p.32 Potential mobility does more to determine the material value of a piece than all other factors
taken together. The standard "value" of each piece and its respective importance has a high correlation with the
average value of the piece's potential mobility, with the exception of the Knight. This exception is because the Knight's
potential and actual mobility are usually very close in value
p.33 The above has established the basic definitions for the three types of mobility. These three will form
the foundation for the new theory, and we will see how the other elements, real and pseudo, correlate with the various kinds
of mobility.
p.45 So to better understand space, we must once more return to
mobility. What is important to realize is that space depends on mobility; that is, mobility "defines" space.
This means that no matter how the board looks, the player with more space is really the one with more actual and actual global
mobility, despite what the pawn structure may seem to indicate. For example, in a closed position where White's pawns
seem more advanced, if Black's pieces, through open files or diagonals, can get around the pawn mass in some way, then it
is he who may obtain the space advantage. This is possible because pieces are not legally bound to stay behind the
pawns. Indeed, an overambitious early push of a pawn mass sometimes leaves one's pieces scattered to the defensive at some
later time because the opposition was not effectively reduced in total actual mobility. So, whereas space is an existing
and useful term, it does not qualify as a basic element.
p.70 Pieces have no inherent material value - it is how they can
be used in the future of a given position which determines their worth.
p.78 It is one of the main purposes of this book to show that evaluation of a position
(excluding tactics; i.e., who stands "positionally better") based on statics [those features which can be
determined by just looking at the board, without any knowledge of motion of the pieces, nor any attempt to analyze moves]
alone is insufficient.
p.99 A new theory should not only be able to explain current phenomena more exactly than its predecessor,
but should also be able to accomplish certain new tasks that were "impossible" under the old theory.
