p.1 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...Chess programmers quantify similar evaluations
in the form of a "scoring function". It is therefore notable that programs relying heavily on evaluation play worse than
those using primarily "brute force lookahead" and very little evaluation. Hopefully, this book will provide a step towards
overcoming some of the difficulties encountered by... programmers.
p.6 if doubled pawns (a static feature) are often bad, but are actually sometimes good, then there must be something
more basic than doubled pawns (elements) on which one could/should base his positional evaluation - something that will help
you determine when doubled pawns are good or bad and by how much.
p.7 POSITIONAL PLAY: Strategy that emphasizes piece and pawn placement, as opposed to tactics [The dynamic maneuvering
of the pieces involving capture, mating attacks, or anything that alters the material situations]. An example is taking advantage
of an opponent's static weaknesses.
p.33 This chapter presents definitions and examples of the proposed ("real") elements. An element is a feature describing
a quantity or quality of the motion of chess pieces; i.e., their actual or potential dynamics. Our goal is not (yet) to invalidate
older theory, just to show that our proposed elements are more basic and can be used as building blocks to better understand
older, pawn-structure based theory.
p.38 Global mobility is an underrated concept. Assessing global mobility correctly may be one of the hardest positional
concepts to master. Global mobility if often the prime consideration when making sacrifices; e.g., "Will the sacrifice cause
the game to be shortened to the point where the total global mobility of my opponent's forces will never have the chance to
make itself felt", or alternatively, "Is the position such that the global mobility of my sacrificed 'material' is less than
the corresponding material that I will capture, so that I am left with the more effective pieces for the rest of the game?"
p.40 Flexibility does not imply high mobility, but rather a wide range of plausible ways to maneuver.
p.48 In his book New Ideas in Chess, Grandmaster Larry Evans uses
time as one of his four elements, the other three being pawn structure(!), space, and force (more accurate than "material").
He has reduced the number of elements to one dynamic and three static. It seems Evans is mixing apples with oranges when he
includes pawn structure. This approach is fine as a novice's guide, but falls short as a theory, and I don't believe Evans
intended it to be. Nevertheless, a computer program which only takes into account Evans' elements should still do well.
p.52 A pseudo element is a positional concept from current chess theory that is either inadequate, too encompassing,
or to hard to define to be a real element. These elements are real concepts, but can either be broken down into component
real elements (which, by contrast, cannot be subdivided) or else shown as inadequate to be a complete element. An example
of a pseudo element that is inadequate (because the concept is too vague) is "development".
p.52-53 Material is the measure of potential piece power... A correct appraisal of material is really more
complex. A proper evaluation must take into account virtually every element, and is strongly position-dependent... Because
the real (material) value of the pieces is dependent upon the other elements, this evaluation must change when the position
changes.
p.60 Pseudo elements are not basic, independent, mutually exclusive elements which can be used as building
blocks for positional theory. Also, they should not be used as bases for evaluative algorithms; similarly, static features
should not be used.
p.61 We will see how each piece gets its power by examining each with respect to the elements. This process
will enable us to show why piece value is constantly changing. This value has a relationship with all the elements, but one
or two elements are major factors. These elements should be the only determining factors of material value, so, as the elements
which affect a piece change, so must the material value. A piece has no unchanging, intrinsic value.
p.76 In our final case (a Bishop which has low actual mobility because it is obstructed by his own pawns
on the same colored squares), we see that this lack of potential global mobility makes the blockading pawns more detrimental
to the Bishop than they would to the other pieces, which can usually use their global mobility to eventually move "around"
the pawns.
p.136 The seven elements [mobility, flexibility, vulnerability, center control, piece coordination,
time and speed] are the basis for positional evaluation. Evaluation based upon static features alone is misleading.
Static features can be used as guidelines, but not as building blocks. Concepts such as space and development
are generalizations. They express real ideas, but can be broken down into components, and thus should not be used in place
of those components as basic evaluation tools. The concept of unchanging material values is a guideline that too many beginners
are taught to take seriously, and is thus the root of many bad habits found in the play (and thought processes) of weaker
players.
p.137 Please consider the merits of each concept presented in this book. In any new theory such
as this one, many will disagree with particular aspects, wanting to add something here or change something there. This is
fine and even necessary for a theory to work properly. I do not expect that I got everything perfect the first time.
I welcome any constructive criticism, comments, discussion, and suggestions. To feel otherwise would go against the nature
of the scientific process.
p.137 [This] book expresses novel ideas, and hopefully in a helpful manner. As a text of my theory, this
book hopefully will stimulate discussion of the key ideas, at least among those interested in positional evaluation.
Dan Heisman in 2003 article in Novice Nook column on piece activity:
Evaluation Criteria: Total Piece Activity 4/13/2003 Novice Nook
The third criterion is your total “army” activity of all your
pieces. This is distinctly underrated by lower-level tournament and on-line players, who instead consider that pawn structure
is more important. I know this because I have tested hundreds of adults in thinking process tests, and weaker players are
much more likely to say that White is better because Black has an isolated d-pawn than they are to say Black is better (in
the same position) because his pieces are much more active. Yet strong players almost always get this correct, so obviously
our beginner books have done a poor job of selling the dynamic possibilities of piece play versus the “easier-to-categorize”
properties of static strengths and weaknesses. In my opinion Garry Kasparov is the best player ever at evaluating and using
total piece activity; he often pitches a pawn or even the exchange to make sure his army is the one with all the play. In
fact, he has occasionally stated something to the effect of “your pieces’ activity is what chess is all about.”
I might add that total piece activity has an extremely high correlation
with the sum of the pieces’ actual mobility, as defined in Elements. If you wish, you could even define them as the
same, but there are more factors involved, such as the value of the real estate where the activity is present (e.g., more
important around the enemy king and near the center), the flexibility of the army and its coordination, etc. In general, if
your army has more activity, you usually have the initiative. The initiative can be roughly defined as “your opponent
responding continuously to your threats instead of generating his own”. If both sides’ material, king safety,
and activity are similar, but one side has pawn structure weaknesses, then the side with the better pawn structure often eventually
develops the initiative just by attacking those weaknesses and forcing the opposing side to defend them, lest material be
lost.
Similarly, if everything else is equal, the player who possesses a single
advantage, with everything else being equal, can usually get the initiative by concentrating on that advantage. For example,
if you have an extra pawn, you may be able to mobilize it into a passed pawn, which may at first cost the opponent flexibility
(the pawn has to be watched and possibly later a piece (to prevent it becoming a Queen).
