The concept of a 'plan'

I've just purchased Jeremy Silman's The Amateurs Mind and he repeatedly stresses that you very early need to have a 'plan' for your game. In his opinion it is not enough to follow the general principles of development, mobility etc he wants all the moves you make follow some scheme that you have thought out. This sounds reasonable to me but at the same time a bit confusing; how many plans can there be?

 

Say you play classicly (occupy the center with pawns). Then there don't exist so many good plans but to "keep control of the center and 'squeeze' the opponent to death by removing more and more territory for him". Can someone please explain this to me?

plans are great ! The problem is my opponent wont let me work my plan. Spoilsport lol

regnskog,

I too am reading books about openings and control and territory, but feel that I also need a book helping me to plan a primary attack and a secondary or alternate attack. After about 15 moves, into the middle game I often lose my plan and am stuck just trying to make moves that arent "bad" without being able to attack properly. Guess just looking at enough well annotated games and playing is the answer, but I would love advice on a main attack, with variation and a back up plan. 

An example of a more specific plan might be to "take control of the d5 square."  The way you would go about this is to develop a Knight to c3, a Bishop to c4, pawns to e4 and possibly c4, and possibly even develop a Bishop to g5, with the intent to pin and possibly trade a Knight on f6 or e7.  Further ways to control d5 might also include preventing c6 and e6 or encouraging c5 and e5, which would leave d5 undefendable by a pawn.  Also trading off Black's light-squared Bishop could help with controlling d5.  Finally, once d5 is securely yours, the idea would be to place a piece (preferably a Knight) on that square, when it can't be forcibly removed.  That is the type of plan that Jeremy Silman is talking about.

   I'm feeling your pain about the plan thing.  Maybe in 2 or 3 of the games i've played and won have I been able to do this successfully.  There is no doubt in my mind regarding this issue.  Definitely something we must learn to do.  My thought is that the plan must be based on recognition of early weaknesses and/or certain patterns of the opponents first few moves.  Maybe someone will come to our rescue.

In order to plan, you have to have a goal. The general aim of developing pieces will fit into future planning. Your ability to plan requires using general principles and acquiring a knowledge base of specific positions. Then you must have vision of the whole board just as an automobile driver sees the whole road and realizes how each vehicle, pedestrian, and animal on or near the road affects his planning. You must develop a feel for the position much as a dancing partner can feel how to move. Each move affects everything else on the board and its balance. Try holding (with helpers) a flexible plastic board (without a surface below it) and placing pieces on it. Each new piece will affect the position and stability of everything else. This will reinforce the point.

   I sometimes feel my planning may be too reaction based instead of execution based.  Difficult to find "balance"?

slowhand wrote:

   I sometimes feel my planning may be too reaction based instead of execution based.  Difficult to find "balance"?

---

According to Silman you should always try to stay away from "reactory" actions. Once you commit yourself to only reacting to your opponents moves you are doomed.

Also I would like to add that I tried playing a game using this plan-concept and comments are much appreciated :) Here is the url: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/a-game-using-plans