11675 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
that is not actually a real plan, that is just some fishing in muddy waters. A plan is like well. i advance my pawns, try to force exchange of my bad bishop and go for a winning endgame were i have a big edge and i have the likelihood of winning the endgame or at least have a safe draw at worse.
Plan is like strategy, what you have are just some vague attacking ideas, not bad but far from a plan.
What do you mean it is not a real plan.?it is not a Master plan of course but to me it was clear and i followed it...i mean..it was real! thx anyway
yes what i mean it was just some concept, you need a real plan.
yeah i get it...more detailed and specific plan not just a fantasy position for my pieces..
Sounds like you had a plan to me. Your plan was to attack his kingside. You even came up with the maneuvers to do it. Not all plans involve good/bad bishops and endgames as tetsuo is suggesting.
but you should have an overall plan why you make you pawn moves etc, he just came up later and said From this move i started thinking of a plan.. Bc7 Qd6 g6 Nh5 and sac at g3 for a mating attack! Well here's the outcome of my plan..
As Lasker pointed out playing without a plan is just mindless agression and someone said a bad plan is better then no plan.
Maybe he had a plan before it but he didnt mention it.
Tetsuo cool...i am the one that points how hard is for me to play with a plan..chill out.. :O
Plans are important in chess, but the best plan in the world can't survive tactical weakness. Your 12...Ba6 simply drops a piece to 13.Qa4+. Until you get castles, you always need to keep the possibility of that queen check in mind.
16...Ng4 was also a bit inaccurate. 17.Qa4+ followed by 18.Nxe4 looks very strong for White. And 18.Nxe4 was also probably winning for White. I think you both really underestimated the danger Black was running by keeping his king in the middle. 19.Nxe4 was also very good for Whitre. I don't think either side actually noticed that Black's d-pawn was overworked
22.Nxe4 also gives White a near-winning position. I'm sounding like a broken record here, but you really have to get in the habit of noticing these things. Against a more alert opponent, you would never have gotten a chance to put your plan iin action
After 29...Bd3? White could have won with 30.Qxc7
thx for pointing out the mistakes..but you can see from my posts 7 and 9 i noticed them too!
no offence i appreciated the analysis paulgottlieb!! i just wanted to tell that i have started ''noticing these things''! ;)
And i didn't just came up with it...by looking the position(pawn formation mostly) i came up with it...
Good for you. It's very hard to go back over a winning game and look for your own mistakes. If you're willing to do that, you will surely improve!
I wanna reach a point when i will win without blunders from both sides! Can that be achieved above master level?
In Silman's 3rd edition of Reassess Your Chess he talked about plans. However, in his 4th edition he had decided that players should just follow the trail of imbalances and not think about plans. He wasn't saying all players shouldn't have plans, but rather that until a player reaches a particular level they should just work on using imbalances to decide moves.
I have read the 3rd edition! xD
I used to have contempt for anyone who tried to attack my king... that's playing for tricks and that's what beginners do. Later I realised even very strong players attack the king (duh ) and actually gaining a strong attacking position involves just as much strategy as any other middlegame plan.
General comment on the use of the word "plan". It may be a source of miscomunication. From most of these posts it seems the understanding is that "plan" refers to strategy, not tactics.
That may be the chess jargon, but in general usage you could/should have both a strategic plan and a (current) tactical plan.
Manic13 I thought you had followed some opening plans. There is always other ways of playing, you got the job done. Wanted to know on move 9...Nc6 what was your thoughts. Also move 16...Ng4 your idea behind this move?
12/5/2013 - Too Many Attackers, Too Little Defenders
by makabay 4 minutes ago
Carlsen is mediocre - my analyses
by Ubik42 5 minutes ago
A Classic Alekhine win
by ClarkDMerrifield 5 minutes ago
my favourites about chess.com:
by Timothy_P 5 minutes ago
What's the catch?
by Samsch 8 minutes ago
what is this whole "carlsen plays like a computer" nonsense
by Ubik42 9 minutes ago
by MrDamonSmith 13 minutes ago
by LongIslandMark 15 minutes ago
CONTEST: Caption this Image of Anand & Carlsen
by winerkleiner 20 minutes ago
why d4 is better than e4
by ajian 25 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!