What does it mean to "Commit to your move" in a chess game?

I've heard my chess club advisor say this. 

For example if I'm planning my moves and then a mild threat comes along by my opponent, then (within reason) I still should commit to my plan or I might lose material or position. This is what I can understand this to mean. Am I incorrect or is there another reasoning behind it?

Do you guys have anything extra to add to this idea of "committing to your move" in chess? Thank you :)

Good point. Those are my thoughts too. I like the war reference! The integration of a battleground is emerging in my undestanding of chess. Sure we know how all the pieces move, but gaining a deeper understanding is part of the beautiful journey, and it doesn't stop there. 

Lets put it this way.

When you go for a sacrificial attack, the point of the sacrifice is that the payoff will at least be worth the material you invest. Thus, it is EXTREMELY important that you follow through with the attack, even if it starts to look ugly. If you lose your nerve and start playing passively after sacrificing, and hand the initiative over to your opponent, you'll simply be material down with no compensation, probably with a lost game.

For this reason, you must 'commit to the attack' by throwing everything you have into it. No point in taking half measures.

I don't know what it means. If you'd said "commit hara-kiri" then that's a natural feature of my games 

Good point Drak. Sacrificial attacks are an entire point of study in itself that I must learn!

Blackrabbit, I looked up the definition of that and it does not sound pretty. Lol. 

Mikhail Tal: 'There are two types of sacrifices: correct ones, and mine.' 

I can equate to that!

I recently bought "The Art Of Sacrifice In Chess" by Rudolf Spielmann

Interesting book .. I've reached page 6 already, which is fast for me

Ah yes, Spielmann's art of sacrifice book.  The back cover really turned me off:  "Instinctively we place the moral value above the scientific.  We honor Capablanca, but our hearts beat higher when Morphy's name is mentioned."

Personally I coudln't disagree more with his sentiment and I never even started the book because frankly I was disgusted heh. 

Pandering to the target audience?  Yeah, I probably took it too literally, oh well.  I hear it's a good book, I'd probably be a better player for reading it :)

Wafflemaster (the username I love so much lol), what does that quote suggest? That religious morals are innate compared to science? Please correct me if I'm wrong...

Even if we don't agree with this, why cross our arms and refuse to hold a book that may offer significant advice, as you said. I'm asking this to myself also.

I've heard so much talk about books on chess on this website. I'm seriously starting to think that one must read a chess book to gain knowledge of the game. That I can't simply play games and learn, I must study them- my games and read chess books. Is that true?

their are two ls in his name... clearly u dont liek his actual username but one u think it shud be. he is master of wafflles not waffles...

That's always been the...er, book.

:)

Nice! And cute bunny pic. My best friend from elementary/middle school used to have a black bunny :'( 

Oh yeah, it is pretty cute.  I'd just thought it was a terracotta flower pot at first...until I enlarged it. 

It suggested to me that the author believed the basis for truly exciting or truly interesting chess comprised of unsound but flashy moves.  When I get a chess book I'm hungry for the science of the game.  A positional exchange sac based on principals followed up by 20 moves of good technique is infinitely more satisfying (to me) than some ridiculous and idiotic attack that relies on the opponent's blunders to succeed.

Even sacrificial attacks against the king are based on logical ideas (when the attack is correct).  These (correct) attacks are satisfying too.

Why didn't I read it even if it had useful information?  People are weak like that... that's one reason coaches in any sport are useful, they motivate you to do the training that's not appealing to you.

I know you mentioned commit to your move as the thread topic and then also asked about committing to your plan.

I'd like to submit to you for your consideration another angle to look at what may be meant as "commit to your move".

One of the most permanent features of your position is your pawn structure in the sense they can only advance and cannot move backwards.

So once you have moved a pawn, you have in essence, committed to change your pawn structure and the position permanently (at least where the pawn is concerned.)

Once it is moved, it cannot be reversed. So if you move it, you must commit to live with the way the game will be different because of the way it changes the position.

The pawn is no longer covering the square it was before. Did you just create a "hole" in your position that could be a weakness your opponent could exploit?

Another example of a move that "can't be undone" once it's made is if and when you castle.

So for that reason, sometimes people will say something like "castling on this move was a committal move" because once done, it cannot be reversed. 

As a result of these committal type moves, your opponents may attack and punish certain weaknesses created by them.

To give an example of how that is different from a "non committal" move would be where you simply move a bishop a couple of squares and can always move it back if you need to, so you don't have to permanently "commit" to that move like you would if you castled, moved a pawn, etc. because you only moved a piece you can always return to a given square.

You may want to ask the others who have already posted if this is correct and in alignment with what they have already said for confirmation or how it differs as I am not as experienced as them.

However, I have heard "committal move" used in this context and thought it may tie in with what you are saying.

Hope this helps. :)

Hehe :)

Yes thank you this helps a lot in my understanding! The point you mentioned about moving pawns in that they can't move back is important. This was mentiontioned to me today. I move my pawns too much at the beginning of the game. What I forget to realize is that those are permanent moves, or as you explained, committed moves. Thank you for bringing that up to me a second time today. It really shows how important it must be in the game.

I like what you said about analyzing the board as if a few moves back hadn't existed. What good are they now if the current position has changed, which it always will of course. In a recent game I was so determined with a plan I had that I didn't move my two bishops around enough to accomodate the changing structure of the other pieces. Past moves aren't going to help with because chess is a highly progressive game. 

In all honesty, taken out of context, the statement "commit to your move" is devoid of meaning. In all of chess teaching there is no such postulate that commands or advises you to "commit to your move". You can be "pot-committed" in poker...lol...but in chess, for better or for worse, you have committed yourself to your move the moment you make it. And if it turns out that it was a bad move then it would be foolhardy to press on with whatever the move was supposed to accomplish...remember, the Titanic was also committed to its course, rather than move about aimlessly...still turned out badly...

Also notice the operative word was "move", not "plan", as some have suggested. True, one is better off having a plan and make moves that fit in with that plan, but if it should be revealed at some point that it is a bad plan, remaining committed to it will rarely be rewarded.

Thank you :) And I LOVE The Titanic! Such a sad but romantic movie