The "artist" is obviously no chessplayer:)
To come any further I feel always very gratefull for usefull comments. Thanks guys! On my previous post drunknknite suggested to study the difference between 1.e4 and 1.d4
In terms of piece activity it is evident that 1.e4 is the move that improves whites piece activity the most. It open diagonals for the Queen and the bishop, giving indirect access to f7, the weakest spot in blacks camp at the moment. With 1. ... e5 blacks improvement in piece activity is no less though.
With 1.d4 white abstains from the move that improves his piece activity the most. At the same time he prevents that black plays the optimal move 1. ... e5 (again in the sense of piece activity)
So it is not about improving your piece activity the most but about improving your piece activity relative to the opponent. If 1.d4 d5 then white has more chance to play e4 later on than black to play e5. So 1.d4 is a tricky attempt to get an advantage later on.
I think it is good to make a distinction between pawnmoves which directly aim at more piece activity and pawnmoves that participate in what I like to call the battle of pawns. Bottomline for both pawnmoves is the relative improvement in piece activity, but the methods differ. One method is direct, the other is indirect, working on the enemy pawns. I think that understanding the battle of pawns is essential for getting better in chess.
Glenn had a few ramblings which I like to adress here:
There are direct tactical considerations, pawn forks and the like. But I suppose that if you interpret "piece activity" broadly enough then winning a piece falls into "piece activity." As does checkmate by moving a pawn.
Chopping off a piece has a direct consequence and an indirect consequence. If the piece was active, you can measure an immediate drop in activity of your opponents pieces. If the piece wasn't active, a potential for future activity dissappears from the board. I can accept a pawnmove based on pure tactical considerations as a separate kind of pawnmove. What I'm after are the pawnmoves that are purely based on positional considerations. Changing the balance in piece activity. So far I distinguish 4 kind of pawnmoves:
- increasing relative piece activity
- battle of the pawns
- road to promotion
- executing a tactical combination
Conversely King safety is a reason to move a pawn, or not. Again, with a broad enough definition "piece activity" is covered by that.
But I would prefer to say that piece activity is an important consideration.
Also, if piece activity is the reason to gambit a pawn then material is the reason to accept the pawn and *less activity* and those all likely involve pawn moves.
True. Gambiting a pawn has as goal to improve the relative piece activity. Accepting the pawn is done with the endgame in mind, which I excluded in my post.
The battle of the pawns must be investigated. This has nothing to do with preserving your own pawnstructure for the endgame while mutilating your enemies pawn structure. There is very little known about this battle of the pawns, to my knowledge.