should you be able to articulate your plans?

If I asked any player to tell me what their plan was, they should be able to do it right? What if they couldn't but still won the game?

At U1600 maybe U1700 or so I didn't have any plans other than a move looked reasonable (gained some space or activity) and wasn't a tactical blunder.

So I don't think many people have plans. When I talk to 1500 rated players they had a plan, but usually switch or change their minds every few moves.

So I think they would verbalize a plan to you, but I don't think their play would actually reflect them executing that plan... at least not consistently.

If they won anyway, that would be normal. At a certain level it's just waiting for tactics with a dash of common sense (like not moving the same piece twice, not putting pieces where they're easily chased away, open lines where you're trying to attack, etc).

This is exactly what I'm talking about. When I watch 1500-1700 blitz streamer on twitch and when I ask them to tell me what they are thinking, it often times feel inconsistent. Like I cannot trust their words. 

what type of chess games are we talking about?blitz?rapid?classical?I guess in blitz planning has no place for example.but in classical chess -even rapid-i would think that a 1700 player would be able to articulate his plan even if it is not so crystal clear in his head (as would be the case with a stronger player).

Well blitz is tricky anyway, no time to think up a long term plan. The plans you do play have to be so ingrained that they're nearly subconscious.

And they legitimately change because the evaluation is different from tournament games. There's a sense of complexity vs time. For example if I find a tricky tactic in 5 seconds and I have a sense that it will take my opponent 20+ seconds to solve it, I will play it immediately because I'm using it to gain time on the clock. Even if they think it through, find it, and now the position is just equal, I count it as a success.

It seems like the only way for the knowledge to be deeply ingrained is by thinking about classical or longer games. Not sure why I even bother playing blitz at my level. 

Yeah, pretty much 100% of the ideas I try in blitz are the ones I've spent a long time thinking about or learning during study, and there's a good chance I've played them in an OTB tournament game too.

So when I see a certain structure or piece placement I know in general what I want, and conscious thought is mostly occupied with making sure my move is tactically safe.

And if I have to stop and think about what I'm trying to do in general, then there's a good chance I'm getting outplayed by quite a bit.

I think blitz can be good as a sort of tactical training at any level... not 4 hours of blitz a day as some people play haha, but a few games a day is probably beneficial.

are you sure that's a good indication that there's a good chance you're being outplayed if you need to pause to think about it? Maybe he doesn't 

I mean, if I'm pausing to think often while they're playing at a good pace, maybe it was luck that they're more familiar with that one position.

But if it happens 2 or 3 games in a row I'm pretty sure they're simply better than me. They're posing more difficult tactics / strategic ideas than I can handle in the same amount of time.

Although I guess there are those who have their 1 or 2 trick openings, and after you figure them out / avoid them then you can win much more easily.

Did younger players spend time thinking in longer games? Is this the reason why they learn so rapidly?

And by saying someone is better than you, do you mean they understand the game more?

Several times I've posted positions from games on this site and asked for ideas about plans. Most of the time, all anyone can spit out are some moves, not plans. So, I would say that most players are unable to form solid plans and just rely on tactical opportunities for the most part.

I have not figured out yet if this is the best way to play. I suppose it can take you to a certain point. But, after that, I would think the ability to formulate and follow through with a plan would be necessary to progress.

For me personally, I have kinda steered my learning toward learning to form plans rather than tactics. Again, not sure if this is the best way to go. But I seem to be progressing steadily and quite often find nice multiple move tactics.

i think it depends on type of game eg blitz or standard and also the stage of game, eg in beginning develop peices, castle, middle game  form plan of attack weak squares and then endgame pawn structure helps form plan.

Another aspect is chess experience. knowing how to work towards plan. another is opponent may make move which forces you to reform new plan.

main  plan  is win best way you know how or force draw.

I've always thought studying tactics simply enhances your way of looking at the board thus allowing you to formulate plans. It's like tactics would give you vision to make the plan, if you know what I mean.

Every video that I've watched on chess.com, the commentator would emphasize on having a plan before making a move. But it feels unclear. I could come up with some random plan that's not based on experience and could potentially throw the opponent off. 

And did you know ChessBrah/twitch said he did not solve puzzles and he's like 3000 blitz? There must be something I'm not seeing. 

No doubt they go hand in hand; each helps make the other work better.

Some young players move fast. Some are patient and think a long time. I don't think there's a trick to learn rapidly, but taking all your time in long games certainly gives you the best opportunity to learn from experience.

I don't mean they understand the game more, just that they preform better. Even in long games the one who knows more isn't always the one who wins. It's performance that counts. For example you might know certain technique to win certain endgames, but that doesn't mean you can use it to analyze the position in front of you.

I think there are different things people mean when they say plan.

One type of plan is figuring out the most efficient or cooperative arrangement of your bishops+knights+rooks+queen. That's more short term.

Or a plan may be more general like I need to play for a b5 pawn break at some point nd attack the queenside, or I'm going to point some pieces at the king and generate threats there.

This is what I think of when I'm talking about planning. Area of the board (kingside, center, queenside) plus type of play (pawn break, piece play) plus specific piece placement (knight on f5, queen on h4, rook on g3).

But there are also other kinds of plans like provoking weaknesses, setting up / breaking a blockade, trading key pieces, stuff like that.

At my level, a plan changes on almost every move because I can only anticipate so much before I really just rely on a feeling about the position. Also at my level, winning/losing a game of chess happens because of a major error after so many little errors, any one of which may be why we win or lose. The ever-changing plan may have little or nothing to do with it:)

Are you by chance reading Jerome Silman? He's big into this.

In standard and slow chess, I try to articulate a plan via imbalance assessment a la Silman.

It often goes like this: I will be patient and launch a queens side Attack. I will drop three pieces in the process and beg for a rematch.

Something like that.