Finding THE PLAN !

How does one develop their middlegame plan? I've oft heard quoted the idea that "If you opponent doesn't have a threat, improve your position".

Surely, this is helpful. But more often OTB I'm finding myself getting to a perfectly good, even a great looking position with no idea how to translate that.

I read a chapter of "The Amateur's Mind" by Silman which has really helped me to navigate the imbalances in positions. But in branching out into some unfamilar openings (The English with 2.g3, the Grunfeld, and especially some D4 openings with white I very rarely try out) I keep getting into spots where I am just drifiting in the ocean of variations, hoping I am not missing anything when I make quiet improvements to my position.

I realise that the old maxim "Learning the opening as a beginner is a waste of time" is true, but I have to say that the best consequence of learning certain openings for me has been having quick access to a general plan after the opening is finished. I think we tend to underate the significance of how an opening informs a plan.

Typically my online chess exists mostly on a bus somewhere in London playing "Fudge it?!" moves in quick time controls. But I've had some serious headaches this season OTB looking for the correct way to evaluate and approach positions where I know I'm doing well. Just wondered if anyone had any advice/could relate to this.

Results aren't too bad and I expect to be around 140+ this season in ECF. But I find myself groping in the dark more often than I'd like to and would like to hear what you guys think.

Thanks!

if you can access a chess coach/trainer to go over your otb games i think that would be the most efficient and helpful way

a good coaching session going over a tournament otb game where you just spent several hours with “the best you have to offer” is essentially getting your game into the “amateurs mind” scenario

i started with a chess coach and at first we only had online games to go over- not the best source material

it was only after playing otb tournament games, then annotating these and sending them off to the coach before our lessons that i really felt our sessions really flourished

my coach (an im) could then really hone into a few specific things to work on (for example, in my latest sessions i was really going to focus on limiting my opponents knight mobility [a lot like silman’s advice] and to not be afraid to- “break principles” when the position requires it- like just playing my king to second rank versus castling where castling was less effective in this very specific position)

granted a coach doesnt have a magical elixir and i still have to do all the work but you get a very specific focus on issues and holes you may have in your game

coaches are not cheap but if you have the otb games with your annotations then i truly think it is worth the cost for a few sessions; especially since you are kind of hitting a wall on your own

good luck

Cheers man thanks for your reply. I've worked with a coach on a few occasions but have yet to make it a regularity.

 

I appreciate you taking the time on a well thought out response. Many thanks

 

 

Here's what worked for me. I reached USCF Class A, roughly equivalent I believe to your BCF 140 rating, without having a clue as to how to formulate a plan. When I returned to chess a couple of years ago after more than two decades without playing, my results were ridiculously bad. No amount of study seemed to help.

Then, a few months ago, I realized that it was necessary to improve my thought process. I'll spare you the details of that journey but will note that the most helpful book in finally understanding how to make a plan was "How to Choose a Chess Move" by Andrew Soltis. Another source that helped to clarify the subject was this quote from Samuel Reshevsky: "I had the happy faculty of being able to spot weak and strong points in a position merely by a glance at its contour. Having done so, I could go on to the next step and enhance my strong points, while surveying my weak ones and/or contain my opponent’s strong points and exploit his weak ones…[T]he foundation of chess logic is the perception of weak and strong points on the board or projected a few moves from possibility to reality."

The process that I'm trying to use can be broadly summarized as follows:

1. Evaluate the position in terms of positional features, including strengths and weaknesses of both sides, and any standard patterns. This step is not performed with every move, but only at critical points or when the progress of the game effects some basic change in the nature of the position. 

2. Based on the evaluation, ask "What should I be trying to do here?" This is really no more than a different way of asking what your plan is, but for some reason I find this formulation to be more useful. This step also, once done, does not have to be repeated until there is a fundamental change in the position.

3. Ask "How can I go about doing that?" It is at this point that you start examining variations. By doing it only after the first two steps, you avoid looking at a lot of unnecessary variations.

In the 7 OTB games I've played since starting to use this method, I have 5 wins, 1 draw, and 1 loss, against players with an average rating about 25 points higher than mine. In the draw and the loss, I had superior positions but fell prey to another of my weaknesses, poor calculation skills, and threw away the advantage. In every game, I at least knew what I was trying to do; for the first time in my chess life, I am actually playing with a plan.

It is likely that each of us must find his own path to improvement at this game, but I do hope that this brief description may assist you in your journey in some small way. Best of luck in your chess endeavors.

Read all my posts in this thread. They stretch over several pages:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/gm-larry-evans-method-of-static-analysis

 

Thank you all for some incredibly helpful contributions.