Comparisons do not often translate across diverse games, but I think this is worth giving a go with.
Chess plays tend to create a web of moves that cover existing positions. A Pawn is covered by a Knight which is also covered by a Rook. The layers of overlapping defense contribute to what gets taken and in what order the pieces are traded (should trades be taken as opposed to more building tension). In this way, these pieces work in concert to hold positions and threaten areas on the board with overlapping strength.
You could instead step back and consider dangling Pawns and other pieces in an attempt to hold more of the board in threat. More squares threatened can translate to more control in a sense, but not having defense means that individual pieces could be picked off and holes could develop which could lead to awkward situations later or lack of sensible trading.
-
To pull this back to WoWs, teams will typically send multiple ships to a flank. Those ships will ideally work together to an extent that they can cover each other, or provide enough threat from a chosen area to provide cover for a teammate elsewhere on that flank. You could choose to look at 3 ships on a flank as completely, incredibly independent and maximize their solo-threat potential... or you can look to overlap their areas of influence and take less map space but bolster the choices you made and ensure stronger trading against those positions.
ArIskandir's match shows 3 positions. A CV, a 3 ship loose-group, and a 2 ship pairing. The point being made is that there is a balance between offense (6 individual positions for maximum threat) and defense (1 deathball). A team can elect to strike a balance and use that constructively. Even Clan Battle matches with CVs did not have deathballs and would typically be a formation of 2-3 groups with a CV being placed with one of them if safe or separate if unable to participate offensively in a safe manner.