Chapter 5: Static Features and the Elements 5.1 Introduction Static features, first introduced in Section 1.3, are those that can be determined by looking at the position without analy¬sis. In this chapter we will continue to examine static features, this time with the aid of the elements. Static features usually -- but not always -- are evaluated without the use of dy¬namic elements, especially time. Static feature evaluation does not change based upon whose move it is, but of course the overall position evaluation almost always does. Static features do change every time an irreversible (castling, capturing, or pawn) move is made. Chess, as a fmite, full information game, should include concepts that enable you to evaluate the position, i.

e., answer the questions, "Who stands better, by how much, and why?" -- given who is to move, of course. It is one of our goals to show that evaluation of a position (excluding tactics; i.e., who stands "positionally better") based on static features alone is insufficient for this purpose. In 1974 many chess theoreticians agreed that evaluation theory, based upon static concepts alone, had an almost endless series of exceptions and even exceptions to the exceptions. In this chapter we will re-examine 1974 theory (as first introduced in Section 1.3) in light of the new theory (and add some observations about how these ideas are viewed in 2009).

Then, hopefully, the reader should be able to decide that: (1) The new theory leads to a more profound understanding of chess, even if used only as a "lower level" basis for static theory; or (2) The new theory has inherently fewer exceptions than 1974 theory. If either is true, then the new theory can be used as a basis for new works involving chess application and annotation. One consequence of accepting the deficiency of 1974's static theory is that statics can no longer be used as a complete positional teaching package. Too often serious students mistakenly use misleading shortcuts in their thought process, stunting their development. It is insufficient to think, "I have a doubled pawn; that is weak. Therefore, all else being equal, I am losing ." Such a thought process may be perfectly correct in a given position. However, a con-sequence of the new theory is to identify aspects of the doubled pawns that represent the weakness, not the "doubleness" itself.

5.2 Static Features and the Pawns A beginner can make a big mistake by being overly concerned about static theory.