You really don’t want an overextended position? With too few pieces for too much space?
Actually this would be a negative „space advantage“?
People, people. I guess you have to learn pretty much!
PS: top trainers and players speak of potential - yes, I’ll take the better potential!
the question is very abstract, how to answer it is unclear
Classic good old depends on position should answer this question
It's not about which one is better, it all comes down to finding the best moves and having a good strategy.
Both material advantages and good positional moves are at our disposal to win a game, but it's all very contextual.
Fixating on material advantage is a common mistake as there are many cases where a well placed sacrifice can decide the game.
Of course it's much more difficult to define who has the better position than calculating who has material advantage.
Like with everything in chess, it depends
Personally, I prefer a large fairly empty apartment to a tiny one crammed full of stuff, but that's just me.
i am sjkadczdgjkscdzg78 xujvduyzcx tgy
@revoltblaster4529 said in #1:
> Space advantage or Material advantage? Which do you think is better? I am personally better with space advantage in form of diagonals or ranks to the opponent's king(not that strong with files, need to improve!)
Unless you have a clear path to a win (or draw if that's your goal), material trumps everything BUT space is huge compensation and more important than any other factor below that.
(it took me 35 seconds to solve this captcha)
I'm not a bot. So material advantage all the way.
Don't forget time (since #17 mentioned the captcha taking 35s).
Getting ahead in development is also worth something, but its dynamic. IF you don't exploit it, and convert it into more permanent advantage like material by a strong attack, you can lose it quickly. That's the basis for a gambit. trade a pawn for faster development.
depends how much space / how much material advantage you have
