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.

Breaking Down Tactics

Some tactics training sessions are long; others short. Yesterday morning, I attempted three problems on Tactic Trainer on my iPad. This app, which sells for $2.99, is one that I have used off and on for several years. As the database of problems are stored on my device, it is useful when I go off the grid--away from internet service. Using this app a few years ago on a fishing trip, I was able to spend three hours solving exercises while making coffee and breakfast for everyone. I reviewed this app in "Chess Tactics Training on the iPad" (February 2013).

I cut yesterday's training session short because it seemed necessary to review. I solved the first problem quickly and correctly. What did I do right? How did I see the combinations? It is worth breaking the problem down to understand what I saw and understood in a matter of seconds. I failed the second problem by choosing the wrong second move. My move was clearly winning, but there was a better move. Was I hasty or shallow in my thinking? The third problem was another success, but I thought that the twenty to thirty seconds I used was unreasonably long for such an easy problem. Why did I require so much time?

One drawback of this app, in contrast to ChessTempo, Chess.com's tactics, and similar training tools on several other websites, is that it does not record my solving time.

Black to move

1...Qxd3!

Instantly I saw that Black attacks the knight twice and White defends it twice. That alerted me to a possible tactic if the king could be driven away after an exchange on d3. It took a few seconds to see Black's control of d2 and e1 with the bishop, and also to see the possibilities of thrusting the f-pawn forward. Is the rook on f8 necessary to the combination? It is.

2.Qxd3 f3+ 3.Kf1

3.Qxf3 is also possible, and that reveals the importance of the rook on f8. 3...Rbxf3. I recall calculating also 3...Rfxf3 and observed that both the bishop and rook cover f8 to meet 4.Rc8+.

3...Rxd3

Black has won a bishop.

It seems that quickly recognizing the deflection tactic was the key to solving this exercise. Some calculation was necessary as well.

White to move

1.Nxf6+

The first move was obvious, as the exchange either decoys Black's queen into a pin or removes the defender of the knight.

1...Qxf6 2.gxf4

I chose 2.Nf3 and failed. I overlooked 2...h6, although then White is still winning and still has 3.gxf4, although 3.Rg1 is better. I saw one pin, but missed possible pins on the g-file.

Acoording to my computer, the best line continues 2...Qxf4 3.Bxg5 Qe4+ 4.f3. I do not know how far the exercise would have extended had I played 2.gxf4.

What causes me to see one pin and miss another? What causes me to overlook 2...h6? Distraction and haste could be factors. I solved this exercise quickly. Also, in the morning during coffee time, my wife and one or more dogs are with me in the living room. But, I think there is something else. Something curable through training.

Black to move

1...Rg1+ 2.Kxg1 Qh1#.

This problem was easy, and I solved it correctly. However, I first started calculating lines that begin 1...Qh3+ and also glanced at 1...Bh3+. It became clear that these lines did not produce checkmate quickly. Only when these lines appeared futile, did I see the correct solution. That may have been after twenty seconds, or it may have been as long as a minute.

As in the previous exercise, I saw a move that looked good and began to pursue it. In both cases, there was a better move. In the third exercise, I found the better move before making my move. In the second exercise, I played a good, but not the best move.

It is good to remember the adage frequently attributed to Emanual Lasker, and pushed back a few years by a reference on Wikipedia, "When you see a good move, look out for a better." As an historian, I must point out that Domenico Ponziani should be credited with the saying.

[I]t is necessary always to bear in mind these prudential rules, viz.: having a good move, to seek for a better; having a small but certain advantage, not to risk it for a greater but uncertain one. Dominico Ercole del Rio, The Incomparable Game of Chess, trans. J.S. Bingham (London 1820), 35-36.

Bingham incorrectly attributes this work by Ponziani to Ercole del Rio, as is pointed out in "Domenico Lorenzo Ponziani," The Chess World, vol 2 (1867), 327-336, an article reprinted from American Chess Monthly.

As a chess student, these historical forays chasing footnotes are less critical than the advice itself. Through three exercises yesterday, I have identified an area to work on: flexibility in calculation. Seeing one pattern, I need to remain alert to others. When I do my tactics exercises, I must slow down. Parts 3 and 4 of David Pruess's video series, "4 Exercises to Become a Tactical Genius," offer suggestions for exercises that specifically address these calculation errors.

Principle of Development: Early History

Morphy is sometimes credited with inventing the concept of development, or at least understanding it better than anyone else before those who followed him began to articulate it in their books and articles.
James Stripes, "Chess at the Opera" (2 February 2017)

Development Theory

Paul Morphy (1837-1884) is often credited with having been the first chess master to comprehend the principle of development. Richard Reti seems to credit him with practically inventing the concept.

[T]his is Morphy's most important discovery--it is essential to develop he pieces without delay, to bring them quickly into action and not to lose any time. Morphy's contemporaries on the contrary indulged all too frequently in premature attacks with their forces insufficiently developed, or in unnecessarily timid defensive moves.
Reti, Masters of the Chessboard (2012), 20.

Max Euwe expresses the point with slightly more nuance, and filtered through the writings of Wilhelm Steinitz.

Development, the centre, open lines; these, according to Steinitz, were the three leading principles which Morphy followed. They were for him prime objectives, absolutely fundamental factors in the battle, whereas for Anderssen they had real significance only insofar as they furthered some previously selected aim.
Euwe, The Development of Chess Style (1966), 23.

In Paul Morphy and the Evolution of Chess Theory (1993), Macon Shibut challenges Reti's claim, echoed by Euwe. Shibut analyzes Morphy's games with Anderssen, and Reti's analysis of them, demonstrating a tendency by Reti to force the facts of the games to conform to his thesis. Morphy's development was systematic and intentional. Anderssen's development was haphazard and incidental. Shibut argues that their games reveal otherwise.

Shibut states, "Whatever the date of its first explicit formulation, the principle of development was certainly understood in a practical sense long before Morphy" (29). Shibut advocates examining carefully eighteenth and nineteenth century master games. His view is that these games "at least manifest the principle of development" (29).


History of Development

The explicit formulation of this principle of development, as is well known, occurred after Morphy had given up chess. Wilhelm Steinitz gets credit. Hence, his name is associated with the Modern School, chess as a scientific enterprise with laws of strategy. Articulation of development in the late nineteenth century gave chess theory a solid foundation upon which to build, and thereafter the games of the masters before Morphy lost their instructive value.

Previously on Chess Skills, I have inquired into the origins and meaning of this term, development. In my reading of old classics of chess literature, I have attempted to trace how the term has been understood. I also have sought its first articulation in the writings of Steinitz and his predecessors. Two previous posts offers snippets of this ongoing research: "Thinking about Development" (August 2015) and "What is Development" (July 2016).

This morning's reading, however, revealed that articulation of the concept of development precedes Morphy's birth by more than half a century. It is found in an 1820 English translation of an 1869 Italian text. The Italian text is Il Giuoco Incomparabile degli Scacchi by Domenico Lorenzo Ponziani (1719-1796), but Ponziani's name does not appear in the English translation, which credits Dr. Ercole dal Rio (1718-1802) with authorship. The English book is by J. S. Bingham, a pen name for J. B. Smith, an English naval officer, according to David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess (1996), 314.

Here, then, might be the earliest clear formulation of the principle of development. Credit the Modenese Masters--Dominico Ercole del Rio, Ponziani, and Giambattista Lolli (1698–1769). Ercole del Rio published La Guerra degli Scacchi (The War of the Chessmen) in 1750. Lolli expanded this work as Osservazioni Teorico-pratiche Sopra il Giuoco degli Scacchi (Theoretical-practical Views on the Game of Chess) in 1863, and then Ponziani's text appeared in 1769. A second edition of Ponziani's text appeared in 1782 and included his name. Nonetheless, Smith chose to translate Ponziani's earlier version and credit it to Ercole del Rio.

One hopes that Smith was a better linguist than he was a historian.

Whether the principle of development was articulated in earlier works by Ercole del Rio and Lolli must await further reading. Of course, some of my readers may be well ahead of me on this matter. Ercole del Rio's La Guerra degli Scacchi was translated into English by Christopher Becker and published alongside the Italian thirty years ago.

Here, then, is Ponziani's articulation of the principle of development, as translated by Smith.

The opening of the game ought to be made with the greatest possible development: that is to say, it is to be executed by the shortest method, chusing those moves which put in action the greatest number of combatants; that one Piece does not impede another, but can act with due promptitude; and that every Piece be so situated, that the adversary cannot annoy it, without danger to himself, or loss of time.--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.
Bingham, The Incomparable Game of Chess (1820), 32.

This formulation of the principle of development certainly bears a strong resemblance to the principle that guided Morphy's play, as Valeri Beim expressed it in Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective (2005), he "sought the move that followed the principle of bringing into play the greatest number of pieces in the shortest possible time" (emphasis in original, 16).