Chess quadrants theorem

Hello everyone,

Yesterday I heard about a theory regarding chess quadrants, which I've been told was first developed by Kasparov and hasn't been refuted since.
It goes something like that, if during a middle game position or endgame (I assume it doesn't apply in the opening you will see why) if you are +12 in that quadrant, so 16 squares, in terms of material, then you are winning on the side of the board the quadrant is in. For instance, you are attacking blacks king side which only has a rook a king 2 pawns in its quadrant, and you have the queen, 2 rooks and a bishop, you at 26 and the opponent is at 8, you are at +12 or more, so it means you are winning on the kingside. The example sucks a bit cause its obvious you are winning with that much pressure, but I hope I got my point across.`

My problem is,
I am unable to find anything about this online, may it be literature, articles or just forum posts, and I want to dig into the topic.
Have any of you ever heard about this? How could this be used and what do you guys think?

Let's discuss!

Best,
Max

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rxy1wYFN29M Start at: 1:28:00 end at 1:35:00 or so, he kind of talks about this. Apparently it was moreso about having more pieces than having more material- +12 just seemed to follow naturally, if you have e.g. rook, knight, bishop you can checkmate his bare king. Queen and pawn is enough to do that as well, which we were counting as `12.

There have been many theories concerning material superiority in a section of the board. The most known and the vaguest is: "Three pieces is mate".

Adnars Video link will strongly trigger your OCD as soon as you realize that the board has been set up 90° rotated.

Geck0 is correct, maybe there's a link to the Karpov game on chessgames or something?

EDIT: check it out here! www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1067294

Très belle vidéo. merci

Uh-oh, another chess theory...

I used to be a big believer in this "Quadrant" rule which I understood to defined as something like "If you have a +2 piece count in the quadrant with your opponent's king then you should have a winning attack".

But Lately, I'm not so sure anymore. Not even mentioning the fact that finding the source material is difficult, I haven't seen enough examples that sort of proving its point and other positions which could be considered exceptions (but I guess that depends on definition)

If somebody were to write an entire book or make a video or simply write an article with fifty or so examples of this rule in motion then I think I'd be a believer.

I don't think this rule is useless because if you play fast time control chess where you don't have time to calculate I think it's a pretty good shorthand solution to figure out when/where you should be your spending time to find shots.

But frankly, good old classical candidate moves with concrete analysis coupled with garden variety pattern recognition skills will probably always be a better way to understand any given position than probably any fancy formula could.

But hey, who knows. Not me that's for sure.

I've seen the quadrant theory explained in a book once. I've heard it explained two different ways by two different people. I just checked the (very small) chess section on one of my book shelves, and I can't find the book. But I do know which storage box or bin its in, if I still have it. Next I go to my storage shed, I'll pull the box and see if I can find the book. I don't remember the name or author, but I'd know it by the cover and size. Off the top of my head, I don't think the book is by Kasparov, and it may pre-date Kasparov's time as world champion, though probably written after Kasparov was born. Until I find the book (if I still have it), I would tend to say that maybe Kasparov wrote about it, but the theory has probably been around a bit longer. I know I've seen the term "quadrant" in some of (Irving) Chernev's writings, but it is not about the theory itself, so much as mention of position in quadrants. And those notes are vague given the standard terseness of Chernev's books, writing, analysis.

What does it mean "to win on the kingside"?
What is the result of the game, if one player wins on the kingside and the other on the queenside?