A game using 'plans'

As my book recommends always developing pieces and playing according to a plan, I tried this concept out with my trustworthy Chessmaster. This time against the personality Alicia(1423). I lost, and so I would like comments :) Thank you

 

You lost because of a basic tactical oversight, nothing to do with the planning.  I think the way you are talking about the game shows you are on the right track.  You know one way you can improve at least (planning).  One thing does occur to me here - there are standard plans in standard positions.  These have been worked out over years of analysis and OTB practice.  I dont know the ideas for both sides in the Taimnov variation, I dont tend to play this way, but you should follow the normal plan, and then you have a framework of what to do when your opponent deviates.  Basically, are you following the correct plan?  OK, its been stated before that 'a plan' is better than no plan at all, but that will only get you so far.  It appears that you start thinking for yourself on move 5.  This is very early in any Sicilian defence!  Unfortunately, learning book moves in such sharp openings as the Sicilian is a necessity these days.  I also noticed you had threats if you pushed more pieces at his king side - possible N sac on f6, swinging a rook over to join the Q.  That and the way you lost suggest maybe look a bit more at tactics first, then the planning will be easier and you will have more ammo to carry out your plan.

Best wishes.

As a footnote to my above comment, I was looking at some planning examples and came across one in a variation of the English opening.  White deliberately gives himself a backward d pawn (on d3, with c4 and e4 played) and expands on the Q-side.  In the first game this was used, smyslov was black and spent several moves with his Ns to establish an outpost on d4.  The Q-side expansion worked and smyslov lost.  His plan seemed logical, but the d4 weakness was only an apparent weakness in the game.  Since then, it has become clear that black has to first snuff out whites q-side play with moves like a6 earlier on and only then go for the central control.  with no q-side opportunites, the d4 weakness becomes serious for white and black has the better chances.  Here then is an example of a good long term plan which you or I can now use thanks to the efforts of analysts in this particular opening, without knowing specific moves.  I saw this in 'Modern Opening Theory' by Suetin.  Good examples of different plan types can be found in Kotov's 'Play Like a Grandmaster'.  I.e. single stage and multistage plans etc.

Instead of 14.f4, better is 14.a3. If Black retreats with Nc6, White has control of d6 and can play Rd2 or other moves. If Black plays 14...Na6, his queenside is blocked. Instead of undeveloping with 16.Bf1, better is 16.Rf1.

Thanks for your input! Some comments:

 

GreenLaser the reason for 16.Bf1 was that I feared a knight trade on d4 when I wouldn't be able to replace it with another one.

 

And I will definately look more into tactics, as suggested by mxdplay4, but it seems that even to gain the slightest tactical skills you have to spend months only doing excercises for this :(

I think the key to developement is work ethics. It might be enough to seriously study Tactics, say, 15 minutes a day instead of 2 hours at once. A little dose of training each day keeps your brain agile.