How would you have evaluated the position and what plan would you come up with?

Hi guys. During this OTB tournament game, i got an overwhelming sensation of "i have no idea of what to do now" and would love to hear some suggestions of how i should have been thinking. This happened when i was about to make move 10. I just couldn't come up with a plan based on my current understanding of chess principles and strategy.

As i was analyzing the positions i concluded:

• I have developed all my pieces and made a nice pawn structure = objective of the opening is completed.
• I couldn't find any further improvement of my piece placement.
• I couldn't find any weakness in my opponent's position. 
• I didn't knew what his plan was, or if he had any (so that i could try to stop it).
• The position is quiet, no tactical opportunities was in my range.
• I couldn't identify any particular strengths or weaknesses in my position.

Basically, there was nothing left to further guide me. What did i failed to see in my evaluation? What clues did i missed that would tell me what to do next? 

I ended up making random moves, giving the initiative to my opponent and loosing the game. 

Is there any common guidelines regarding how to decide on what side of the board to play? Looking at the position by move 10, white and black appears to be equally strong on both queenside, center and kingside, without any obvious ways to expand my position or further improve the position of my pieces (besides kingside castling). This is where i hope to gain some insights and learn more.

 20. h4Hoping for some miracle at the kingside. 

man, that sh*tz ' funniest I've read 2day

Ke2 g4 that's some creative stuff; love it!  Those ideas will eventually take you very far.   When I played through it I thought "c4" at that juncture, so ok ya, it's playable.  Sticking 2 that plan (breaking the c file on Your terms) with determination is what matters tho, not moving that LSB twice, which instantly struck me as the lost tempo that broke the c file queenside; well I like your style even it didn't work this time.  Ok you seem to be learning chess from start to finish, rather than endgame to start,  Reversing your thinking will solve all this; you have to know for what you are aiming and retrograde analysis is how, oh and endgame study!  So ok, this video might help you correct your aim.

At move 10 probably 0-0 is a normal move as Bacon suggests. But ok you decide on the highly committal g4 as you say 'hoping for a future kingside assault'. Well I think after g4 the kingside assault has started so why not continue with g5 and see if you can break through or induce a mistake? Perhaps it will work out well, perhaps not but instead you did other things and you opponent rather distracted you on the other side. If you have decided on a plan, especially one involving something as loosening to your own position as g4, it is usually best to follow it through to the bitter end. 

I think part of the problem was that you tried to play too many ideas. You played both c4 and g4. I would say pick one of those ideas and stick with it.

If you want to play c4 then you should probably castle Kingside first. Generally you want to play the least flexible moves first to maximize the options you have. You can even put a Rook on the c-file before c4. Never feel like you have to rush in calm positions. Often lower rated players will lash out with their pawns when they don't know what to do. This is a bad habit because if you push too many pawns you may create weaknesses in your position. Just try to keep making useful moves. You'd be surprised how many games you can win just by maintaining a solid position and waiting for your opponents to make mistakes.  

If you want to play g4 then you should castle Queenside and avoid playing c4. Keeping your King in the center is usually not a good idea, especially when pawns can be easily exchanged to open up lines. After g4 the logical continuation would be g5 to open up the g-file. Then you can put a Rook on the g-file and maneuver your pieces towards your opponent's King. 

This really sums up what mistakes i made and what i need to learn to improve, thank you for your great input! I'll learn from this. And thanks to everyone else who gave a comment.

Loudcolor wrote:

I have checked out the few retrograde chess puzzles that are available on youtube, and they were fascinating! But i am not sure if solving those will improve my game performance, besides exercising my logical thinking. I do study fundamental endgame lessons and drills on chess.com. Predicting the opening based on an endgame position is far beyond my current skill level.

Yeah, these colle / london type structures can be a little confusing.

Having said that, and having looked at some of the advice already given, I think there's still an important misunderstanding.

Ok so first some words:

tactics = short term forcing moves

positional play = short term logical moves (like centralization or castling)

strategy = long term plans

Ok, and now for where I think you might misunderstand: In some positions strategy is not possible.

On move 10 you should still be in positional mode, just make some logical moves and wait for the position to take on a character of its own.

I would probably 0-0, play a pawn break, and only after that might I start to challenge myself to set some strategic goals... but even then it may still be impossible. The position may still be too balanced.

---

Ok, anyway, your play wasn't so bad until black got in b5 + c4. Even your move Ke2, while odd looking, wasn't bad.

Although to sort of repeat what I said before, it's a little troubling whenever I see a player say they had no idea what to do and they haven't even finished development yet... if your king isn't castled and if all your knights and bishops aren't off the back rank yet you don't have the right to say "I had no idea what to do"

And of course you already got a lot of good advice, so I just talked about this other stuff.

Assuming we start with that positon. Black's queen is a bit poorly placed, not active at all. White should look to take advantage by opening up the position (c4 and e4). The latter needs preparation, the former does not. After c4 you can maintain the tension, get a rook to the c file, maybe get a knight to e5. Assuming black castles a does some waiting/nothing moves(Qc2, a6), you can look to take on d5, if he takes back with the c pawn, you have better control of the c file (assuming black also makes preparations to get the c file you will be a tempo or so ahead). You should than look to improve your pieces and adapt to your opponents moves/plans. Note that taking with the e pawn is a positional error, it gives white a minority attack (push b pawn, than a pawn, in order to create a weakness), for free.

With regards to your opening. If your opponent plays bf5 on move 2, the most critical approach is to play c4 (does not "refute" this response but it makes it makes black heavily uncomfortable). You can look at Simon Williams videos on the london system (in one of the videos where he covers 1. c5 and other responses to d4), he mentions that you should play c4 after 2.bf5. If you dont black achieves equality easily.

g4? Your king has no totally safe place

Yes, i have watched a few of Simon Williams videos by now and i will watch more. They are great and i like him as a teacher.

Danlstheman: I have so far read the "why you need to learn pawn structures" article and i feel like it speaks to me. I've heard about Silmans imbalances concept but don't know how to formulate that knowledge into a plan yet.  Looks like i have quite some study to do!

By the way it's a lot easier to make plans when there are differences.

Even if the pawn structure is symmetrical you can do small things like they put their rooks on c + d files so you put your on d + e files.

They develop one of their knights to the 2nd rank, and you develop both to the 3rd.

It might sound silly, but very strong players do these things all the time.

But if the two positions are nearly identical (like in your game on move 10) then don't worry about long term plans. Just do small term improvement operations like centralization or opening some more lines. Simple stuff like that. Eventually there will be difficult decisions to make.

One thing that I'm surprised no one has brought up: the use of hope in your thinking. You mention "hoping" for something not once, but twice. Never, ever should you base moves or plans on hope. You make things happen, you don't "hope" for anything to happen.

Seems like semantics though. g4 is part of a kingside attack in some positions, so he was trying to make it happen the best way he knew how. Maybe he meant "hope" in this case as "while working for my kingside attack I thought black was winning"

Not at all. This is an error in thinking. It's a very common problem, I see it among my students all the time. Hope is used instead of making specific plans, and especially instead of calculating lines. "I'll play this, and maybe something good will come of it." But how?

Yeah, but it's tough in the beginning if they don't know any patterns, haven't played many games, etc.

I wouldn't call it a thinking problem as much as an experience problem.

(Unless of course they are experienced enough, and are just lazy.)

Point taken. It happens that i resort to hope when i can't come up with a plan. More often than what i am willing to admit. When i don't have a plan, i should think about achieving other, smaller objectives in chess, like develop/improve my pieces, increase center control, improve king safety, pawn structure or hinder my opponent in those areas. Not a single move should be done in just hope or aimlessly. In reality, i will probably continue encounter situations where i play hope chess, until i have reached a higher level of understanding that enables me to identify clues in most positions and make a logical move.

I am glad others find this thread useful. I can't see IMBacons posts too, don't know why they disappeared...