Knights before Bishops?

I actually don't have to look up the definition of "theory". When one reads theories all the time, it is not adding to the definition to read a dictionary adumbration of the idea. But if you only use the dictionary to understand a word, one may find themselves to be more inclusive than exclusive with words, defeating the idea of word use altogether.

When I said, "What theory?" it was about the OP, not about Waller's explanation. A case of simple chronology, which you neglect in your last post, could have cleared that up for you.

"What don't you understand about his explanation? "

Whose explanation? The Op's or Waller's?

My theory is that chessnetwork is playing with our heads for amusement.

I think tryst is just having a bit of fun.  chessnetwork's thought (which of course is not new) is so logical as to be obvious.  And of course its meant to be a general rule, not how you should conduct each opening move every time.  Just like when beginners are told to castle early, often or both, obviously in high level games (and even some of our own) exceptions abound.

It's obvious not everyone thought the notion was confined to openings. I saw a lot of discussion of middle game and diagrams of end game. It would useful to know before I start designing mates using pieces with the fewest options. Although, I was looking forward to explaining to an opponent how foolish it was to mate with a powerful piece when he could have moved a piece with fewer options.

It would be interesting to explore how logical it is even if the discussion is confined to openings. At this point, I don't see how it clarifies. The Bongcloud would seem consistent with this logic.

Saying, "it depends" is so obvious, it should go without saying. It no longer sounds insightful.

Also, the notion of "it depends" seems to ask for an illustrative example. I'd be interested to see an example incorporating the notion of developing knight then bishop on one side, then the other.

If there's something I can use, I want it.

The rule would make an interesting chess variant.

I'm sorry, orangehonda, I genuinely don't understand what ChessNetwork was trying to say. I have read the posts attempting to interpret him, but I still don't find it obvious. In a good maxim such as, "A knight on the rim, is dim", and "Move every piece once before you move one piece twice", the inference is understandable to me. ChessNetwork's attempt at an equally easy to understand maxim failed for me. As he kept adding on, it didn't become clear at all what he meant:

*"Move the pieces that have the fewest options first." *"If you're in a position where your bishop has only 1 square(1 choice), and your knight has 3. Move your bishop first." *"Don't give me the address of your pieces too quickly. I can adjust accordingly, sooner if so." Every one of those sentences begs for context and explanation. They are far from pithy.

And MyCows post above is hilarious!

Maybe I filtered it to make sense to me without taking it too literally.

Pieces that only have one good square to develop to, should be developed first... which is often the knights... which is why you hear knights before bishops.

Saying "pieces with 1 option" doesn't literally make sense because in the opening you'll almost always have more than 1 legal move for a minor piece.

The endgame diagrams made no sense and were posted by some guy who wasn't following the thread of discussion.

I thought it was clear chessnetwork was talking only about the openings, and only about the minor pieces.  Instead of distinguishing them by type (knight vs bishop) chessnetwork wanted to distinguish them by number of reasonable development squares (which is the idea behind "knights before bishops" in the first place).  Evidently he saw this as an equally applicable/memorable maxim that led to less bias (vs "knights before bishops") for the aspiring player.

That's how I took it anyway.

thanks for posting, its a cute suggestion, and likely reduce analysis time, apt from the bullet maestro

>:)

It is a good concept and has general applies because it avoids telegraphing your move.  No need to beat to death and put it through a wood chipper. 

NO RULE APPLY TO CHESS AND LIFE :)

I thought it was a suggestive and insightful idea. To develop the piece with the least options. Unless you have a best move or strong attack ready now. We should be developing our pieces. But people always tend to gravitate towards the piece with the most options . Instead CN suggests to develop the once with the least optiona. Because the more pieces we have with many options. The better position we have as a whole . Increasing our wining chances. Although this is better said than done. It is a good idea. I started developing my weaker bishop first befor3 my knight, during the opening. that is why I came here to find out why it was working so well for me.