Tactics vs planning

Yeah, that's what I mean by barter and exchange, and also why really the only time it's a monologue is when someone is completely outplayed.

Concrete calculation instead of planning is how young chess players play chess nowadays, they tend to try to play like chess programs do.  The problem with it is that humans more than chess engines are limited in their chess calculating ability... So, How concrete really is their calculation? that's the question

I am currently reading an excellent book "Applying Logic in Chess" by IM Erik Kislik. Here is what he says about "Always have a plan" advice:

"You do not always need a plan. If you have no apparent plan at all but have awareness of the important things in a position (the opponent’s ideas, badlyplaced pieces on the board generally, and weaknesses), very often you can make purposeful moves. You can make a purposeful move that prevents the opponent from playing a good idea or improving one of his badly-placed pieces. You can make a purposeful move that cements a weakness in the opponent’s position or liquidates one of your own. You can improve one of your pieces without necessarily having it connected to any plan. Very often we can play purposeful chess without a clear idea of how the play will develop, or even what our next move will be.
The idea that you should always have a plan is particularly confusing for beginners and places no emphasis on the fact that the opponent also has ideas of his own that you have to take into consideration. The quote feeds into the myth that every brilliantly played game was based on a deep master plan seen well in advance. Old books often gave the impression that you could plan out exactly how you were going to win the game in superior positions and the opponent would be helpless to stop you. In most cases, games were won with generally good multi-purpose moves that had many ideas behind them, not just one. I do not think this idea of grand or deep plans is even something useful to bear in mind. It may actually lead to shallowness of thought, rather than depth, due to missing the opponent’s ideas. The focus should be on playing the best move in each individual position, regardless of whether you can predict exactly how the play will proceed. Sometimes there are just too many possibilities in a position to really have a clear plan in mind and it is best to just play good moves that you think improve your position generally or deal with the possible coming complexities in the best way possible. Flexibility and being aware of the opponent’s ideas are very important. A lot of the time you can come up with the best move in a position without needing to see necessarily where the rest of your pieces are going next. Instead of always having a plan, try to always have good reasons for your moves instead. That sounds obvious, but certainly helps in understanding and learning from your own decisions after a game."

Defensive technique has advanced to the point that it is almost impossible to play a whole game according to a single over-arching plan or script, the way it used to be done in Morphy's or Tarrasch's day. Instead, a game gets pieced together out of a series of short-term goals and localized plans.

I think we pretty much agree that engines don't plan at all. They evaluate the position and consider long term strengths and weaknesses, but they don't actually plan. 

"I hvae played enough Classical FIDE rated otb to know that i'll never be good at that".

Never tell never. In chess you get improve every single day. Tactics is much important such as strategy. You must study all phases of the game.

And I think we pretty much agree that it would be a mistake for humans to try to emulate the method engines use

What's the difference between evaluating long term elements and planning? Seems to be semantics. You don't like the word "plan" ok, but even during the WCC broadcast they use the word casually.

Symmetry? This is chess.com lol. You are talking strategy... talking game theory. This thread is for books by Bozo.