Plan and Development in the Opening

As the old well-known thesis says, playing according to plan is better than playing without any plan at all. Let us call the plan a set of several moves united by one goal. There is a small, completely "light" example:

What does this example show? The fact is that a plan drawn up independently, but unprepared in "the laboratory", almost always carries the possibility of error in compiling it. Moreover, in most games, up to the highest level in meetings of approximately equal rivals, some plans after the opening will inevitably be invented by the chess player himself.

... A few years ago, I witnessed an interesting dialogue between a qualified amateur (in Western terminology, a "club player") and a former elite player. The amateur proposed a thesis, how a grandmaster 2600 + wins. You make a plan (if of course you have succeed the opening), he makes a plan, then he catches you on tactics and the game is over. It sounds rather ridiculous, but this is for someone who is deeply immersed in chess. And if not, then it is quite logical. After all, an ordinary viewer did not catch anything strange in the absurd speech about drawing up a plan by Tobias Maguire (who played Robert Fischer, 11th world champion) in "Pawn Sacrifice" - movie? Studying his own games, his students games, other people's games, for a very long time the author tried to formulate, and how does the game actually develop in the opening and transition to middlegame? What is behind the words "It would be good to know the typical plans of this variant," "The player was better prepared for the opening," "Black lost the thread of the game after leaving the opening," "I know these lines for 20 + moves," "So, it's time to draw up a game plan" and many others? Study of classical works (Middlegame. Romanovsky's plan, the work of M. Yudovich ([In Russian]) and many others ) gave a strange incomplete answer to this question. The game plan is born quite intuitively. Your brain makes it at the moment of the end of your strict knowledge of the line. But the player has some inaccurate knowledge and attempts to subject the ongoing scraps of ideas, which he knows about the position, typical plans of other players or  His Majesty the PC (from standard engines to neural networks). Moreover, this moment looks extremely dangerous, as Vishy Anand has also noted - it is dangerous to know something unsure about, it is better to know nothing. The article does not claim to be the answer to the question - "what is the best plan?" The question is asked in other way - when and how chess players create it and how to try to compose it on their own. And in general, what is planning in early middlegame - through the prism of studying the opening. The author hopes that the article will be useful for players starting from the club level who are able to realize what is written (i.e., it is written for an adult audience with the power of playing from 1200 ELO).

The Steinitz-Bardeleben game, which was played in Hastings in 1895 in the 10th round, was not chosen by chance - it is widely known, dismantled in a number of works (including in Zaitsev's "Attack in a Strong Point" [In Russian]). For the purposes of this article, a well-known, pure, classic batch with a very clear plan is best suited. There is a game:

What is the conclusion? The position before the 7th move of Steinitz was known, although he did not know it assessment (for an obvious reason, he did not have a computer). It is not known whether he analyzed 7... d5 at home before the game. Imagine that there is no (all in all, it is not a historical and archival study).

So, Steinitz knew the position after the Nс3 move, knew that the correct reaction, equalizing or giving an advantage to black 7... Ne4. He knew the main line after the move of 7... Ne4 with all significant branches (it is very important that in the main line the position is determined (although there may be several main lines)). That is, the plans of the opponents after the end of the main line with a rather clear assessment were also known. The ocean of uncertainty opened on the sides of the main line if one of the opponents deviated from it, on purpose or without knowing it. Of course, the basic line was relative, and the theory changed. The main option might be this (there was no such theory in 1895, a modern version is given):

He might assume that after move 7... d5 position should be in favor of white (here the player's logic is reproduced, who uses the absolute adviser - the computer before the game. As it is  done everywhere now, let this logic be applied in this game, although with purely human preparation there are their own nuances).

Further, there are 2 options for the development of events - white knows the exact game plan for white and the exact position assessment recorded in the files before the game and further stored in the memory of our natural "computer" and the second, respectively, this is not. If we are dealing with the first case, then for the study of the proposed question you should go to the point where knowledge has become inaccurate. But imagine that the knowledge became inaccurate here, after the move of 7... d5.

In this case, the white still has something left from preparation. What, then? Inaccurate position evaluation in the form of "as black deviated from the main line, then I should have a good position, but I do not know how good is it."

Let's look at the position separately. The first move begs.

The alternatives are frankly not serious. If the bishop leaves the impact, for example, a pawn on e4 is lost. So the move 8.ed white does in principle confidently. Further, black also takes d5:

And then the very moment of drawing up a plan has come!

Let us summarize:

1) White presumably came out by the moment when the plan had been drawn up more ready for the opening;

2) White should draw up a plan, black has to respond to the actions of the opponent;

3) White knows an inaccurate evaluation of the position "I should have better, but I don't know how much";

4) White has a psychological initiative, since  the exact opening knowledge has ended later for them. Black may assume that in this direction  white has been still recording everything  on 5-7-10 moves;

In fact, the next turning point of the whole game can be formulated as follows - is it possible for white  to understand by himself/herself a complex position using his/her knowledge of the nature of the position and its evaluation? And there is a dramatic pause... (!). Because "- Do I know the theory better than you?! - And my head is better than yours!!" (from the dialogue of two legendary Soviet grandmasters). But to be serious, there is an obvious weakness in the position - an isolated pawn d4.

And if white fails to make a competent, energetic, accurate plan, the long-term advantage of black may affect (look below, what the position may come to).

And here there is a stumbling block for beginners - they are simply afraid to play such positions, because it doesn’t matter what the coach has explained, taking as witnesses an almighty computer, we know what will happen now! And it will be that we will not be able to find anything in the next couple of moves and a weak opponent will torment us using the weakness of the pawn d4, playing to win without risk.

Perhaps this is the reason why it is so useful to play gambits (after all,  you have courage often because you do not imagine any dangers) at an early stage of the study of chess. And in general to fear less is good for you. Otherwise, a person gets used to not understand the essence of the position and all the time passively defends himself/herself (which will bring much more defeats). But the author has kept his mind off  a little.

So, as Steinitz postulated, the player, who had an advantage had to attack under the threat of losing this advantage. We are talking about the advantage in development, so if we have an extra knight, then it will not run off the board so easily. I repeat, now white  need to draw up an energetic plan to make development difficult for black , to  take advantage of his/her development and at least weaken black by the entire amount (that is, not less than half a pawn for the weakness of the pawn d4). Something like this:

we would already be satisfied, although white has an isolated, but extra passing pawn.

What moves has white available, what plans? It begs to castle and push along the open line e, until the black king castles. Black will not be able to respond immediately the same, because  the white knight c3 pin had disappeared and white attacked the knight d5 in the center by the bishop c4 and the knight. Alternative active moves candidates - Qe2 +, Bg5, Qb3, Bd5. Consider them, too. If you do everything carefully and actively, use the exclusion method (cut off all reasonable alternatives), then you cannot part with the inaccurate knowledge "the position should be better, since the opponent did not play according to theory."

No, as you can see, it doesn't work. Both alternatives are too serious - 9. 0-0 and Bg5. From now  white (if, of course, he/she doesn't cheat) will use only his/her mind for his/her own calculations. In one of the sequels, the advantage is hidden - but we do not know where. Steinitz made a strong move, short castling, pressurizing.

Black's answer was natural. As long as it was easier for him to play, his alternatives were not too serious.