lol a lot of people are mentioned that comment - "I didn't know what to do".
When you get more experienced, and start facing tougher players, you'll find that this isn't really a big deal - Dan Heisman talked about a master friend - when the master friend didn't know what to do, he'd just move his king back and forth. When the opponent took that as a sign of weakness and started making committal moves, suddenly the master friend would know what to do, and would usually win the game.
But thanks - I chose this game because there are so many positional concepts in one game! For example, pawn breaks, maneuvering, exchanges, pawn majority, principle of 2 weaknesses, etc.
All moves have to be related to a plan and make sense. You can not simply go around playing moves that make no sense or do not follow your plan.
Well, you can, but it will not get you far.
This I disagree with - you can do this, but just not on most of your moves (then yes, you're probably in trouble). Magnus Carlsen does this often - in endgames, he moves his pieces around, and after 20 moves, makes no progress whatsoever - he's just waiting for mistake from the opponent. This is how he wins.
For another example, see this thread: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/challenge-me-2
National master plays "troll" moves on purpose in daily games, but still beats most of the challengers because his tactical skill is much higher.
Interesting, it defies all what I thought I knew about chess. Looks like Im gonna learn something new today! Could you share some Magnus' Games where he just plays waiting moves that are not related to any plan of his?
You will find this article instructive:
https://www.chess.com/article/view/magnus-carlsens-best-endgame-wins
Particularly, notice in the first game, which of course is a draw, Carlsen spends 13 moves maneuvering, yet it doesn't do anything - the game is drawn, and will be drawn by Radjabov's choice, and Magnus can't make a plan to win or anything - he just keeps his pieces on decent squares.
Then, Radjabov blunders, and suddenly Magnus can make direct action.
By the way - here's the general idea.
When you have a "plan", you make a series of moves towards direct action. But no matter what, your plan will involve *contact* between your army and your opponent's army.
When this happens, tactics will inevitably occur - If your plan was a good one, and your moves good, then you will be very well prepared, and the tactics will favor you.
However, if your tactics just aren't that good, or the opponent's tactical skills are much better, *and* your plan/positional play was not so much better that your opponent has no play whatsoever, the better tactical player will almost always be able to find some unsound, but complicated way to "mix up" the position and win through that - that's why computers like Shredder could beat human masters, even though their positional play was weaker.
The annotations of that game vs Radjavob make it clear Black is following a plan all the time.
I think we simply do not understand him, he is always doing something. You don't become World Champion by making waiting moves.
I disagree - Magnus is only improving his position gradually, which every player would try to do. Radjabov's mistake was the deciding factor. Had Radjabov not blundered (say it was Stockfish instead) then Magnus would still be shuffling his pieces around for another many moves.
This is confusing.
"Magnus is only improving his position gradually"
So he is not waiting around, right?
This is confusing.
"Magnus is only improving his position gradually"
So he is not waiting around, right?
There's a difference between "waiting around" and making random, safe moves. Magnus knows that he wants his pieces to be on the best squares, but there's absolutely no progress he can make if Radjabov doesn't let him.
Going back to the original subject - when you are "waiting around", you are just making gradual improvements in your position.
I don't call that a "plan" though.
On a more serious note, I am currently working on my positional play, and I really enjoyed your analysis Cherub