Even when I play well, I often don't have a plan. I just see what each of my opponent's moves leaves behind and try to claim the weakness. I try to create problems as much as possible and to create initiative. But I have no plan.
Sure, I try to put a rook on the 7th, to have a strong pawn chain, to focus on the center, to create pins and to prevent my opponent's strongest moves. However, in the end, it's all just a reaction to whatever weakness I can find or create. There is no master plan.
How do you play? Do you actually have a plan or are you just using general chess knowledge to react to your opponent?
Do you use the SCAN method? http://home.worldonline.dk/kfyhn/VikingChess/RussellBlack/Article2.htm
"planning" is vastly over-rated anyway -- on the contary to what many books say, its often far more simple and effective to wait for your oppenant to come up with a [duboius] plan, then refute it!
The only time I move with plans is in certain positions (complex opening, endgames, etc) where planning simply needs to be done, other than that, all i do is the simple BxN or NxB then try to close/open the game type ideas.
Above comments strike me as reasonable enough -- even persuasive. Then we have the point of view I recently encountered in some chess book or other which declares, "A bad plan is better than no plan at all." Who ya gonna believe?
Originally posted by basso Above comments strike me as reasonable enough -- even persuasive. Then we have the point of view I recently encountered in some chess book or other which declares, "A bad plan is better than no plan at all." Who ya gonna believe?
I'm probably going out on a limb here, But i'm going to disagree with a Gm.
Planning is only important when your tactics and other facets of the game are reasonably solid, and I think bad plans, 9/10 times will etheir surcum to tactics or be positionally duboius - and consequently I think you are better off refuting a bad plan than actually working out your own.
of course, this all leaves an important question:- how "bad is "Bad"?
if you learn how the middle game works such as pawn breaks you'll do a lot better in the middle game. usually the people below somewhere around 1550 dont know what their doing in the middle game and just trade down to an endgame.
Originally posted by kmac27 if you learn how the middle game works such as pawn breaks you'll do a lot better in the middle game. usually the people below somewhere around 1550 dont know what their doing in the middle game and just trade down to an endgame.
Would you be happy to add some more information about pawn breaks, as this is an area I haven't paid any attention too.
I don't plan too many moves ahead, try and learn some of the gambits or opening and aim to still be around for the middle game. Any advice would be welcome
ok in the sicicilian defense black tries for queenside counterplay with b5 or he goes for d5. white on the other hand goes for e5 or f5 after playing f4 and getting the king into the castled position. in the caro kann formation black tries for c5 and white plays for c5 of d5 after playing c4.
Originally posted by kmac27 ok in the sicicilian defense black tries for queenside counterplay with b5 or he goes for d5. white on the other hand goes for e5 or f5 after playing f4 and getting the king into the castled position. in the caro kann formation black tries for c5 and white plays for c5 of d5 after playing c4.
thanks...so the term "pawn break" refers to the choice of which where when & why etc. pawn to push for the best advantage (correct me if I'm wrong) - I'll take some time to look at the examples you give.
Originally posted by kmac27 if you learn how the middle game works such as pawn breaks you'll do a lot better in the middle game. usually the people below somewhere around 1550 dont know what their doing in the middle game and just trade down to an endgame.
and (i know this myself as i suck) below a certain point, you don't even trade down to an endgame, you just finish somewhere in the middlegame.
Originally posted by exigentsky Even when I play well, I often don't have a plan. I just see what each of my opponent's moves leaves behind and try to claim the weakness. I try to create problems as much as possible and to create initiative. But I have no plan.
Sure, I try to put a rook on the 7th, to have a strong pawn chain, to focus on the center, to create pins and to prevent my use the SCAN method? http://home.worldonline.dk/kfyhn/VikingChess/RussellBlack/Article2.htm
Exploiting a weakness is a plan.
Getting Rs onto the 7th (because they will be strong there) is a plan.
Trying to achieve any strategic goal is a plan.
Once you have achieved the goal you reassess the position, look for weaknesses, and develop a new plan. It strikes me you do have a plan but just don't realise it!
Originally posted by exigentsky Even when I play well, I often don't have a plan. I just see what each of my opponent's moves leaves behind and try to claim the weakness. I try to create problems as much as possible and to create initiative. But I have no plan.
Sure, I try to put a rook on the 7th, to have a strong pawn chain, to focus on the center, to create pins and to prevent my ...[text shortened]... use the SCAN method? http://home.worldonline.dk/kfyhn/VikingChess/RussellBlack/Article2.htm
sounds like you have a plan when you play.
a plan usually means a few moves not 20
playing without a plan is pushing pawns without thinking why your pushing it attacking opps pieces without considering his reply
trading for no reason and in general moving a piece without thinking of what comes next.
A game with a plan is trying to develop& manuver your pieces systematically to create pressure on opps weaknesses force opps pieces into a cramped position and tactics. of course any plan must be flexible.
A bad plan is better than no plan in that you can learn to make better plans, not much room to improve without a plan at all, (particularly if you rely on your opponent to come up with a bad plan and then to refute it).
Originally posted by Shinidoki I'm probably going out on a limb here, But i'm going to disagree with a Gm.
Planning is only important when your tactics and other facets of the game are reasonably solid, and I think bad plans, 9/10 times will etheir surcum to tactics or be positionally duboius - and consequently I think you are better off refuting a bad plan than actually working out your own.
of course, this all leaves an important question:- how "bad is "Bad"?
planning is working towards a position. so if you see your opponent implementing a bad plan then you plan to refute by getting your pieces to the best square to make the best of the position and punish the opponent for making a bad plan.
example of a plan: you have a knight vs your opponents bishop (dark squared). There is a support point on the sixth rank for your knight. Your plan can consist of bringing your knight to that hole while trying to force your opponents pawns onto dark squares to limit his bishop.
No Plan in Chess
24 Aug '06 05:171 edit
Back to Top