Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

What do you think about my game and my plan?


  • 18 months ago · Quote · #21

    manic13

    TetsuoShima wrote:
    waffllemaster wrote:
    manic13 wrote:
    TetsuoShima wrote:
    manic13 wrote:
    TetsuoShima wrote:

    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

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #22

    manic13

    paulgottlieb wrote:

    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!

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #23

    manic13

    manic13 wrote:
    paulgottlieb wrote:

    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''! ;)

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #24

    manic13

    manic13 wrote:
    TetsuoShima wrote:
    waffllemaster wrote:
    manic13 wrote:
    TetsuoShima wrote:
    manic13 wrote:
    TetsuoShima wrote:

    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

    And i didn't just came up with it...by looking the position(pawn formation mostly) i came up with it...

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #25

    manic13

    paulgottlieb wrote:

    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?

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #26

    manic13

    nimzovitch2013 wrote:

    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

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #27

    TetsuoShima

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 18 months ago · Quote · #28

    waffllemaster

    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 Tongue Out) and actually gaining a strong attacking position involves just as much strategy as any other middlegame plan.

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #29

    LongIslandMark

    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.

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #30

    Ferric

    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?


Back to Top

Post your reply: