Principle of Development

The first task of a chess player at the beginning of a game is rapid development. This means that a player should deploy the maximum number of pieces on squares where they are not vulnerable and work together with other pieces. They should be deployed with attention to the opponent's efforts to accomplish the same.

There are other ways to define the principle of development (see "What is Development"). The paragraph above is an effort to present the essence of the oldest definition of the principle that I have found in print. That definition is a translation of writing by Domenico Lorenzo Ponziani (although credited to Ercole del Rio by the translator). It was published in English 17 years before Paul Morphy was born (see "Principle of Development: Early History").

Morphy is usually credited as the "first player to understand the importance of swift development in open games", as Thomas Engqvist puts it in 300 Most Important Chess Positions (2018), 13. Engqvist offers 30 key positions from 24 games to articulate the concept of development in practical ways (13-32). There should be no question that Morphy's games illustrate well the principle of rapid development. They also show, as Engqvist elucidates well, how to sacrifice material to gain a decisive advantage against a player who neglects the principle.

I have spent that past ten days working through these 30 key positions as part of an effort to read the whole of Engqvist's book in 60 days (see "60 Days, 300 Positions: Day One"). This morning I reviewed all thirty positions after spending some time (too little) on numbers 26-30. I noted the key ideas that Engqvist offers through these positions, questioning how much was absent from Ponziani's articulation of the principle.

Engqvist includes center control, which I do not see in Ponziani's statement. He also shows Morphy's preference for avoiding "unproductive one-move threats" (14). Some of the most challenging positions in the first section of the book feature positions from modern grandmaster practice where the idea is to interfere with the opponent's harmonious development. The translation of Ponziani states, 

Whoever, at the beginning, has brought out his Pieces with greater symmetry, relatively to the adverse situation, may thence promise himself a fortunate issue in the prosecution of the battle.
J.S. Bingham, The Incomparable Game of Chess (1820), 32.

In the context, I suspect that harmony might make more sense than the word symmetry, but I have not examined Ponziani's Italian. Nonetheless, it is clear that the notion of attentiveness to the opponent's development exists in Ponziani's formulation.

William Steinitz is often credited with articulating the principles underneath Morphy's play. But, clearly other chess writers before Steinitz mentioned the principle of development. As for Morphy being the first to understand rapid development, I offer this position, which would be in my collection of 300 most important positions.

White to move

White has already sacrificed two pawns and here often plays 10.Qb3, sacrificing a rook for a winning attack. Black's best chance is 10...d5 11.Bxd5 O-O, as was played in Meyer,H. -- Ubbens,MH., 1926. Gioachino Greco is credited with the position and has both 10...Bxd4 and 10...Bxa1 for Black. In fact, Greco copied this position from the manuscripts of Giulio Cesare Polerio, or perhaps a book by Alessandro Salvio (see "Greco Attack Before Greco").

Searching ChessBase Mega 2024 for the position turns up nine games with 10.Qb3 prior to the first with 10.Ba3, which might be an improvement (see "Corte -- Bolbochan 1946").

After 10...Bxa1 in Polerio's composition, we have a position that I like to show students in conjunction with this position from Morphy's Opera Game.

White to move

In both cases, White is behind a considerable amount of material but completely winning because Black's pieces lack mobility. It seems clear to me that Polerio and to an even greater extent Greco understood the pitfalls in neglecting the principle of development. It remained for the leading players of the so-called Italian school a century later to articulate the principle.

Nonetheless, Morphy's games remain the clearest early examples.

Interesting Exercise

This pawn structure arises after the Spanish Exchange and a similar one, but with Black’s doubled pawns on the f-file, can arise from the Caro-Kann. Opening theory states that Black cannot allow liquidation of all the pieces because the pawn ending would be lost. Max Euwe offers analysis of how to play the pawn ending in an obscure book. Thomas Engqvist presents the analysis in 300 Most Important Chess Positions (2018).

White to move

Naturally, after reading through Engqvist’s analysis, I played the game against Stockfish. My best result after several efforts has been a draw. I lost, used the takeback feature, and tried again. In repeated efforts, I’ve blundered and lost more than I have tracked, but completed two games with draws.

The win is elusive and worth pursuing for what I can learn about pawn endings.

Today is the ninth day of my 60 day quest to go through all of Engqvist’s book at the rate of five positions per day. Yesterday, I spent a fair amount of time looking at games from which positions 21-25 were or could have been derived. For instance, one position featured a novelty played by Hikaru Nakamura in 2011. Several other players have followed his lead and I played through some of those games.

Today’s position is the 16th in the section on pawn endings. I have been alternating between openings and endings. I will finish the development section tomorrow.

Edit: after multiple efforts, I dove back into the analysis in 300 Most Important Chess Positions. I have been struggling against the engine from the wrong position. Black's a-pawn should be on a6. How much difference does this make?

Today's Position

White to move

This position is not among the five that I considered today from Thomas Engqvist, 300 Most Important Chess Positions (2018), which I am working through at the rate of five positions per day. The position does come from a game from which Engqvist extracted three positions, but it was this moment in several games that captured most of my time this morning.

This position seems to have arisen for the first time in Gelfand,B. -- Karpov,A., Sanghi Nagar 1995 and at least twice more that year.

Gelfand played 9.Nd2 and lost after a long struggle. In Anatoly Karpov, How to Play the English Opening (2007), it references 9.Ne1, first played in Gulko,B. -- Sadler,M., Lucerne 1997 as an improvement for White (47). Nonetheless, ChessBase Mega has two White wins, two draws, and four Black wins after 9.Ne1. One of the draws is Engqvist's source game.

After 9.Nd2, White has three wins, a draw, and two losses. Why is 9.Ne1 an improvement?