How to form a plan?

When Playing chess, if you go without a plan against your opponent, you will be stuck with a bunch of waiting moves. Lets say...

... or something like that. Finish the opening... now what? Sure, get you pieces in a good position, but what about attack? Is it better to attack, or to respond to attacks by opponents? Now, I understand that the type of chess play you are effects your decisions... but what do you think suits me? The middlegame decides the game typically, but what to do in the middlegame...? Search for tactics? Advance your army? Stop your opponent? What is the best thing to do? 

I understand i'm not the best chess player, but if you don't mind, can you in a way tutor me? (By Slow ches chat?)

Thanks, JJZ03

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/what-to-look-for-when-making-a-plan

----------

(p. 26)
Analytic Method   A technique for determining the best course
of action by asking oneself pertinent questions. A method for
planning.

Pandolfini, Bruce. 1995. Chess Thinking. New York: Simon & Schuster.

----------

(p. 161)
      THE ANALYTICAL METHOD
      IN CHESS THINKING

The analytical method provides a "reality check" as you contemplate
your next move. You put yourself in a critical mindset, analyzing
your opponent's move and your intended response against a check-
list of simple questions designed to prevent you from making obvi-
ous errors. Before each move, ask yourself:

1. Does my opponent's last move contain a threat? If so, deal with it.

2. Are my pieces all adequately protected? Has my opponent
left a piece exposed to capture for free?

3. Is my King still safe? Is the opponent's King vulnerable? For
example, is it possible to sacrifice a pawn to prevent the enemy
King from castling?

4. Did my opponent meet the threat offered by my last move?

5. Do I still have pieces that need development?

6. Can I move a Rook to an open file--say, the d- or e-file? Is it pos-
sible to double Rooks or a Queen and Rook on a useful open file?

7. Does my opponent have a weakness that can be exploited?

8. If so, how can the weakness be exploited? (Find a way to exploit a
weakness that involves making a plan!)

9. Does the move I plan to make overlook something very, very
simple, such as the loss of a piece or checkmate? Train yourself to
look around at the position "with the eyes of a beginner," as Rus-
sian players often say.

The analytic method isn't just for the middlegame. Use it to vali-
date your opening and endgame play as well.

Alburt, Lev, and Larry Parr. 1997. Secrets of the Russian Chess Masters, Volume 1: Fundamentals of the Game. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Take 6 pieces of paper. Write the following phrases on the pieces of paper:

Attack on the king side.

Attack on the queen side.

Push through the center.

Develop.

Sacrafice a piece.

Resign.

Fold the pieces of paper and put them in a basket. When you get in a position you don't know what to do, take one of the pieces of paper and do what is written on it.

lol

@kleelof: it's definitely a russian roulette haha

Yes, I'm guilty of playing roulette chess at times when I'm in a difficult to read position.

This thread is really good! A welcome change from the "I AM A_L_I_V_E, THE CENTRE Of THE UNIVERSE" threads.

This is such a common question that I think I'll write up my own procedure for making and executing plans since I've rarely ever had situations where I was at a loss as to what to do. Partly the opening itself suggests a plan, partly there are default moves characteristic for each opening, partly chess is a waiting game as you patiently await the opponent's mistake that will allow you to win, partly there are generic things to do (in the opening develop pieces, in the middle game advance your central pawns), partly I rely on mini-plans like seizing a file or doubling my opponent's pawns. I've never formalized all this, even for myself, but this thread motivated me to do so. I could be regarded as a nobody with only a low provisional rating, though, so I don't know if my efforts on such an algorithm or checklist would be convincing to anybody, but I'll do it out of my own curiosity to formalize my own thought processes.

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/why-is-why-the-most-important-question-to-ask-in-chess-positions
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/what-do-you-say-to-yourself-before-you-make-a-move
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-to-get-in-the-habit-of-using-tactics

----------

(p. 1)
      The Game of Mistakes

Chess is a game of bad moves. It is, in fact, the game that most
depends on error. No game has a greater variety of ways of going
wrong or gives you as many opportunities--dozens on every move.
Other games depend heavily on chance or on the mastery of
some relatively limited skills. But a chess game is decided by the
failings of one of the players.
   Yet we refuse to recognize this. We like to think the game is
a battle between good moves and better moves. When we win,
we tell ourselves--and anyone who will listen--that the critical
difference was our fine maneuvering, our positional cunning, or
our tactical ingenuity. When we lose, well, it was a stupid mis-
take--as if errors were an aberration, an extraordinary accident.
Mistakes can only be messy, ugly, and disruptive, we say.

   Regardless of our own success, we like to think a chess game
should be won, not lost. (We thereby ignore that most vital skill,
the ability to exploit enemy mistakes.) We try to elevate the
game to some level it can never achieve--at least not while it's
being played by humans.
   The masters know better. They know that a well-played game
is not an error-free game. There are errors of varying magnitudes,
and each game is sure to hold some small mistakes. "Chess is the
struggle against error," said Johannes Zukertort, one of the great-
est players of the last century. Victory belongs to the player who
struggles best--not just against an opponent, but against himself.

Soltis, Andrew. 1979. Catalog of Chess Mistakes. New York: David McKay Company, Inc.

This is true.

But it should be pointed out that, although tactics should be considered early in your evaluation, tactical opportunities should not automatically trump strategic moves.

Perhaps you will end up a pawn ahead, but is the capture going to release some powerful bottled-up force in your opponents army?

Here is a position from a recent game that can help demonstrate this point:

The first thought is Bxc7; a free pawn.

But there is a strategical move that trumps this particular tactical move.

Be5.

This gains control of the LDS diag, it forces Black's knight back to e6.

The resulting positional gains are worth more than the pawn.

I realize this is a pretty simplified example. But it, none the less, demonstrates how stragetic moves are as important, and often more important, than tactical moves.

I dunno about tactics first. I learnt no strategy, only tactics and any position without tactics just bored me to pieces. Lucky I learned a few endgames but it was never enough to sustain any real interest in the game.

But wouldn't a strategy to keep your pieces and not get checkmated help at all ? Not that I'm a great exponent of chess strategy btw! Lol

kleelof,

Be5 looks like tactics to me, not strategy, since it forks the knight and g-pawn at the same time!

bananapyjama,

chessmicky is absolutely right. First of all, every game has some tactics in it, and usually even some winning combination! Second, if you don't get your positional play down, you won't be able to reach positions where you have those dazzling sacrificial combinations we all love.

P.S.--Nice lips.

----------

(p. 7)
   One is reminded in this connection of Spielmann's well-known
comment on Alekhine's virtuosity. "Given Alekhine's positions, I
could see the brilliancies as well as Alekhine," said Spielmann,
"but my trouble is that I can't reach the positions." Aye, there's
the rub--to get the sort of game that will enable you to win. We
believe the Point Count will be an effective instrument for ac-
complishing just that, though you will assuredly not gain a
"Master's degree" without experience and study.
   Many of the strategical factors are no doubt familiar to you
through the catch-phrases "control of the center," "the two
bishops," "the outside passed pawn" and so on. This book under-
takes to give a comprehensive list of these factors, to explain how
to determine their merits and to provide a simple system of
evaluation.

Horowitz, I. A., and Geoffrey Mott-Smith. 1960. Point Count Chess: An Accurate Guide to Winning Chess. New York: Simon and Schuster.

----------

(p. 8)
Vladimir Pafnutieff, said to me, "Chess Combinations are
the punch in chess. You have to develop your chess skills by understanding
combinations. Virtually every chess game has a chess combination. You
have to learn to recognize when a combination is available and you must
land the blow! If you do this you will win a lot of games. If not, I can teach
you tennis."
   Vladimir was right. Combinations are the cornerstone of a well-played
chess game. Either avoiding a losing combination or creating the proper
advantages necessary for a winning combination. I needed to learn to co-
ordinate my pieces, develop rapidly and target vulnerable pieces, pawns
and squares. Then maybe, just maybe, my combinations might work.

(p. 9)

   The first thing we must learn is that combinations, and especially those
that lead to checkmate, do not materialize out of thin air. We have to cre-
ate the conditions for their successful introduction. We must establish an
advantage. The easiest type of advantage for us to understand is when we
are ahead in force. Our favorite living condition. From a position of su-
preme material superiority we can afford to be magnanimous. Yes, combi-
nations come easily when we are ahead in material. Imagine a position
where we may be a pawn or two to the good with only a few pieces on the
board. From a situation of material and positional superiority we sacrifice
a pawn to introduce a combination that forces the trade of all the remain-
ing pieces. Then our superior King's position motors through the oppo-
nent's position vacuuming up the remaining pawns for an easy win. Sheer
(p. 10)
happiness carries us through the rest of our day. Our combination to force
the trade of all the pieces worked!

Seirawan, Yasser. 2006. Winning Chess Combinations. London: Gloucester Publishers plc.

All you have to do is check that no pieces are hanging on the next move, or the move after that or .....

Tactics only arise as a result of blunders.

Or so I hear .. Lol

One tool for determining the value of a move is classifying it as a strategic move, a tacical move or a combination of both.

The move Bxc7 is easily nearly or completely a tactical move. It has no other immediate or foreseeable advantage beyond the gain of a pawn.

Be5, on the other hand, has little if any tactical value. The attack on the knight and the g-pawn are both empty threats since the simple move ..Ne6 not only negates those 2 threatgs, but eliminates White's option to get the free pawn at c7.

The tactical value comparison between Bxc7 and Be5 is heavily weighted toward Bxc7.

With this in mind, Be5 can really only be considered for it's strategic value. That value being in the fact that Be5 helps clear the LDS diag and puts pressure on the king side pawns.

And, in this specific case, strategic value trumps tactical value.

BTW - I am not disagreeing with the things said here about tactics. If there is a good or decisive tactic, it should be placed toward the top of your list of candidate moves. I just want to help others understand that tactical moves do not automatically trump strategic moves.

hey everybody! it's rollorules here u may know me- I made epicchicks ( don't judge was dared) have made another chat so plz come along it's called something like 🎭🎠🎡🎪🎭🎪 c u there!

The diagram was only to demonstrate in some positions that a strategic move trumps tactical moves.

Sure, if you want to change the position, then maybe it is not a valid move. But, for the position at hand, it was valid.

I always consult my RMG: random move generator.

I got one of those magic 8balls and took out the little triangle thing and replaced it with my own, loaded with moves like Nf3 and that sort of thing. In a pinch I reach for that, give it a good shake, and voila.

The success of this method can explain my blitz rating

Taking on c7 is the best move here! You gain a pawn, give Black an isolated central pawn, and slow down his development:

I agree with chessmicky, it's just that his example maybe wasn't the best. I remember once I was playing an OTB blitz game that was very tactical, but I noticed I was getting a bad position and all the pieces on both sides were scattered badly. I merely pushed my rook over to get coordinated on the e-file, my opponent paused from all his tactical pushes to comment "Clever!", and I proceeded to win. There are many such examples where positional factors outweigh tactics, especially when you're playing against a computer.

I think we should focus on the OP's question instead of on chessmicky's specific example.

Small book, with only one "fundamental law" proposed --

http://www.amazon.com/Find-Right-Plan-Anatoly-Karpov/dp/1906388687/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1423602632&sr=8-1&keywords=Find+the+right+plan+Karpov

Simple.