What do you do when you can't see a move?

try and improve the position of your worst place piece. It will improve your overall position.

I run into this a lot. I just can't seem to figure out what to do thats best.

But I like the idea ARandomPerson just gave.

This. Or develop a long-term plan (control this file, open this diagonal, grab the bishop pair, etc.) and start enacting it.

Not to repeat some of the good advice (improve your weakest looking piece) above, let me instead list out things that starting-out-improvers (let's not call anyone a beginner or a weaker player here) do in your type of situation. These almost ALWAYS turn out to be bad.

What NOT to do when you can't find a move/plan

1. Play break moves with pawns without any long-term thinking about what may happen after the break. The most common "defective" thoughts are assuming that your opponent will instantly trade pawns and not ignore you or walk his pawn past yours.

2. Move a piece more than once if you haven't finished your development. You really should only do this if there is a tactical need for it.

3. Make unnecessary trades and hope something good happens after that. If you look at the games of strong players, you'll NEVER see this behavior.  Maintaining "tension" and the famous "the threat is always better than the execution"  are mantras they follow well.

4. Play h3/h6 or a3/a6 when the position does NOT REQUIRE IT and rationalize it as luft for an endgame. Well, the sad  news is, by weakening a kingside in this manner against a stronger player, you probably won't really get to an endgame.

5. Create holes in your position with pawn-moves, especially when you feel you are being squeezed.

6. Attack when the position does not favor it. This includes your sophisticated school-kid "Bc4 + Qh5 + mate the bastard" idea as well as making threats (checking for the sake of checking for e.g.) that really help your opponent more than it helped you.

7. Opposite of 6. Not consider a flank-attack with pawns when the position is SCREAMING for it. This still remains one of my personal bad habits. :)

Wow, I can't count how many times I've done #3!

Going through the middlegame without a plan will leave you like a blind man in the middle of a shooting range.

yes, I had a game like that just end, I COULDN'T move my knight, I couldnt move my rook without moving the knight, couldn't move a pawn because it was pinned to the rook, and eventually forgot that the pawn was pinned and quickly lost.

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=30309511

If you've castled, hang a waiting move with your King, moving it to the corner, or up on the 7th rank if you've pushed the pawns (and it makes sense) - your opponent will think you have a really deep plan, will spend a long time wondering what it is - and will then often play a move which weakens his position. Exploit that weakness.

Or follow the advice above: determine which piece is your weakest, improve it.

I'll keep that Idea in mind: improve the weakest.

hey thanks - these are all great suggestions. I do make all the moves Shivsky mentions - esp. #3 - trades for trades sake. Not usually productive...

Another idea: figure out what your opponent's strongest plan is, and prevent it.

Try 'Tactics Trainer' to improve your visualisation

Sometimes there are no tactics. I resort sometimes to stalling moves - (move K etc.) Is there a name for that (aside from lame... ;-)

How common it actually is to have a Zugzwang-style situation in middlegame? Where "there are no tactics" and moving will only make your position worse? Then it would make sense to play a stalling move if one is available. I don't mean blitz or time trouble cases, but situations where stalling move gives a genuine positional advantage. I'd guess... not that often.

@Shivsky: Thanks for your great post!

Well, if you've played without a plan until then, it's pretty common that there are no tactics and no good plan -- you simply have a bad position.

Instead of stalling, I'd try to see if I could prevent the other's plans. If you can't, you might as well resign.

You could post some examples of positions where you felt you could only waste time and trade pieces.

Concrete examples should be much more helpful then all this theorycrafting.

Your "stalling moves" are usually called waiting moves and if you want I can find some examples in GM games.

Most of the advice above are positional way of thinking. Sound, but imo, at your level this is often no different than your previous situation, having no idea what to do to complete the game.

Playing with a plan is indeed different with playing without a plan. Formulating an advanced plan is not easy but imo you can always have a plan by always focus on your opponent's king. Look at where the king moves. Bring your pieces to that direction. Sound or not, you will be able to generate an idea when you don't forget that your objective is to bring your opponent's king down. Positional way of thinking may unnecessarily bring you nowhere if you are disconnected with this "ultimate plan".

Imagine a situation where you are busy with your opponents' weak pawn on the queenside while his king is sitting safely on the kingside, and your opponent is always busy looking for a way (tho recklessly) to reach your king.

You may successfuly win a pawn at last but often that pawn advantage turns out to be worthless than your opponent's pressure against your king.

In your level, positional play is not crucial, tactics is. And the gross form of tactics is hunting the opponent's king.

I disagree. The objective is to eventually checkmate the king, sure, but it's misleading to suggest that you should therefore aim for that all the time. The huge majority of chess games are decided by material advantage, followed by promotion of a pawn, followed by eventually checkmating.

In many positions, going for the king is just more or less impossible and therefore the wrong plan.