Should you always have a plan?

As a beginner myself, I had the same question lingering on my mind. Some really helpful ideas and resources in this thread!

Sometimes getting too fixated on a plan, on "what to do next, in the long run", can make you blind to obvious blunders, because you are only looking at your "plan" rather than your piece safety. In my latest game I had this position:

My knight was a bit trapped behind my own pawns, so I was fervently thinking how can I get it unstuck. I was thinking which squares would be better for it, so that it could actually do something. Getting it to c6 and from there to d4 would be ideal, but I couldn't see any easy way of getting it to c6. Another good square would have been e7, attacking the f5 pawn and supporting the g6 square for a possible pawn advance, but I couldn't see an easy way of getting it to e7 either.

Then I thought that my best option would probably be to get it to b6, and from there possibly to a4 and c3 to get behind enemy lines, or alternatively to d7 and from there to f8, to support the g6 square.

So with my plan decided I commenced it, and moved Na8. Approximately half a second later I noticed the problem with that move and resigned.

I was so concentrated on my plan that I was blind to obvious blunders.

One move superficial threats work great!

The plan to get the horsie at d4 is decent, and it can be utilized at once, as the white queen is unprotected: 1...Ne6.

Too tricky of a move to see at my level under time pressure...

having a plan is very very important to know what to do.

My usual plan is to move pieces and hopefully eventually checkmate my opponen. If I am worse, my plan is to move pieces so as to avoid getting checkamted, soon or eventualy.

I hope that helps!

hi

Sometimes it's just essentially impossible for me, at my level, to formulate any kind of plan. During my last game at this point I once again started pondering "what should my long-term plan be?" and I got nothing. Even afterwards, no matter how long I stare at this, I can't think of anything.

In retrospect perhaps I should have played Bxc3 to get rid of that annoying knight before it gets to the way-too-powerful square d5 (which I didn't notice, and thus I didn't think of doing). However, that's not really a long-term plan, just an immediate fix to a problem. I still don't know what the long-term plan should be. Maybe there are no viable long-term plans in all possible positions?

Bxc3 Qxc3 Bxe4/Rxe4 needs analysing to see which is the better capture. 

Try to think in little blocks of 3-4 moves ahead, analyse the potential positions. 

Yes, in retrospect that Bxc3 would have been the unambiguously best move because not only it gets rid of the knight before it gets to the annoying d5 square, but in addition it would have gained me the e4 pawn pretty much for free. (I have noticed for quite a long time now that even a single pawn advantage can be absolutely massive, at least at my strength level.)

In that sense perhaps this wasn't such a good example to ask the question "what should be the long-term plan in this position?" given that there's such an obvious immediate urgent material gain to be had, which trumps all possible long-term plans, and which I did not notice.

I suppose I'm still at that point where in retrospect such things look apparent and obvious, but during a game I can be really blind to them and just not see them.

Yeah everything is easier to see in retrospect. Your example shows though that usually the correct move or sequence is correct because it ticks all the boxes. Bxc3 is correct because it prevents a potentially dangerous Knight from landing on d5. It is also correct because it allows you to win the pawn on e4. 

In some positions it's not possible to have a long term plan, so you just do short term improvements.

It's not so much about "a reason for every move" it's more about having 2 things:

1) A proper evaluation of the position's strengths, weaknesses, and prognosis (a plan or "reason" isn't something you force, it will naturally flow from this).

2) Calculating forced moves to make sure your intended move is safe from forcing sequences

---

So forming a plan isn't really something you do because you want to. It's something that arises organically during a game from your knowledge and experience... and sure you can study the games of strong players who made good plans to learn about good plans, but during a game, thinking to yourself "I'll come up with a plan now" is missing the point. Make a proper evaluation of the position and a plan will form itself... if it doesn't, then you're not good enough  (which happens to all of us) or the position doesn't have a plan in the first place.

Daybreak57:  "No one got really good without attending as much sanctioned tournaments as possible, at least 100 long tournament games in a year."

That requires some money, and some time.  And you're right.  Have to maintain a good, positive attitude when the inevitable bad setback happens.  Plenty folks travel a good distance, stay overnight, and lose rating points.  "I trained hard for this, spent this much money,  blundered pitifully and lost both games and rating points!!!   Aaaargh!!"

Dad, mom, friends console the miserable soul.  "Losses are always good for learning!"  

That's truly helpful.  Sure to brighten up anyone  after a wretched tournament.

In that particular situation, the long-term plan is simply to play a pawn up. Hardly a plan, I know, and I would not even call 1...Bxc3 a combination - rather an elementary tactic.

It's not that you should always have a plan in the form of a number of moves that you happened to like more than others, as that's in the neighborhood of Woodpushing 101.

What you should try to do is to understand, by analysis, the activity on the board for both sides. It goes like this: No activity -> activity -> threats -> initiative -> unstoppable initiative -> checkmate.

Going from one stage to the next one usually involves more than one solitaire move, and those moves happen to be called "a plan".

What I mean with a "plan" is, perhaps, what could be considered some kind of strategic improvement of your position (or the worsening of your opponent's position) that's not merely some kind of immediate obvious gain (like material gain) or an urgent move (eg. defending a piece that's in danger of being captured with no or too little compensation). In other words, how to improve your position in the long run (ie. more than just a move or two) in a situation where there isn't anything absolutely urgent going on.

Examples of such "plans" could include things like:

• Noticing that one of your minor pieces is not doing anything relevant and, eventually, getting it to a position where it's actually doing (or could potentially do) something more useful.
• When one of your minor pieces is trapped behind your own pawns, getting it free and making it useful (a special case of the above).
• Mounting pressure on a weak enemy pawn (even if there's no immediate obvious way of capturing it with gain) tying enemy pieces into defending it, away from attacking you.
• Improving your king safety, or weakening the opponent's.
• Trying to open a file for your rooks.

Perhaps another way of putting it is that every time you make a move, there should be a reason for that move. You should be able to explain why you made that move. A reason better than just "I couldn't think of anything else", or "it felt good".

@DjVortex: It's not that we choose but that we try to understand the needs of the situation and play accordingly. That's the reason for the guideline: No activity -> activity -> threats -> initiative -> unstoppable initiative -> checkmate.

Check the following game. It can be said that each annotation there is about "an idea", often labeled as "a plan". Sometimes an idea is carried out by a single move, sometimes it involves prerequisites. That's why it's said that playing without a plan means playing without an idea derived from the position. Pretty much as Treybal trying to play the Stonewall in that game.