The Silman planning method, who at RHP applies ...

Who at RHP applies this method?

Just trying to get an idea how you guys plan your games

What, precisely, is the Silman planning method?

I certainly subscribe to Silman's advice that you should always play with a plan, which I read in his book, "Reassess Your Chess." I recommend this book, and it certainly seems popular among chessplayers, at least, on this site.

I definitely agree with his advice that you should play the position as the position dictates.

In essence, he says to create imbalances in the position, and attack your opponents weak points - I guess, accentuate the imbalances, to your advantage.

Every good player plays with a plan. Actually every chessplayer plays with a plan - although some do not plan very well nor very deeply!

The way I plan:

Narrow down your options until you have a few playable moves. I usually use the highly useful analyze board feature, and play both sides out, figuring what move would lead to a superior position. Natural developing moves often are better then direct attacking moves early in the game. Many times, a long think isn't necessary until at least 15-20 moves into a game.

The move I choose is based on experience (games I have played in the past, chess knowledge I have accumulated through analyzing games and from kibitzers, learning from my mistakes - pattern recognition) and intuition - on what I feel is the best move in a certain position. But I try to rely less on intuition and more by what the position dictates I should do when I analyze.

Of course, the hard part is accumulating the chess knowledge. There is a lot of chess theory out there - but not usually easily accessible (i.e. not written in layman's terms; if someone could give me a name of a book with advice/chess knowledge which could potentially help make me a Grandmaster (i.e. a significiantly stronger player), I'd appreciate it). 🙂

hope this isnt unbearably long: when the position is quiet i try and do a thourogh evaluation using the method, also asking myself other questions:reason behind my opponents move?, threat?, what did it leave behind? i use the rules of combination to see if i can find any tactics, i try and find out the plans for both sides by using the imbalances(do i have space on the queenside? half open file leading to a backward pawn? holes for knights etc...), ask myself if prohylaxis of my opponents plan should be considered. if there are weaknesses of his i can attack or if one can be made, or if lines can be opened up. if i can strengthen my strengths, minimise his strengths or minimise my weaknesses. i come up with fantasy positions(check and see if they lead to good play or are easily defended against.) that use the imbalances to achieve goals-

-(like my two rooks on the open file to allow penetration of the seventh or eighth rank, and my knight on the hole adding controll to a square making the long term goal of a passed pawn easier. also sometimes the creation of an imbalance itself is the goal, such as more space on a side of the board, in which case maybe rooks well placed behind the pawns might be part of the position.)-

-when finding plans for both players considering plans for each side of the board. calculate with candidate moves, look at my decision and do another tactical evaluation and ask about the threat, idea and what it left behind. this process i only do rarely on correspondence, as it takes a while, and over the board there is less verbal self communication and more intuition and visual thought and guess work. hint for the method: i first starded trying to understand the method thinking it allowed a mechanicle means of understanding what you should do, but the imbalances are like guideposts i think. you have to supply the imagination on how you use them. sometimes your plan isnt about using you imbalances so much as creating ones you can use for instance. all planning i guess is using your strengths and his weaknesses or strengthing or minimising or creating or getting rid of the strengths and weaknesses of both players i guess.(or magnifying and/or accentuating in the case of opponents weaknesses.) hope my understanding of the technique is correct, and that i didnt just make myself look silly. most of all hope it helped others understand how to apply it, as that is what i struggled with for a long time.

Originally posted by HomerJSimpson
Who at RHP applies this method?

Just trying to get an idea how you guys plan your games

Its part of my consideration but I don't rely on it wholesale.

Originally posted by Yuga
What, precisely, is the Silman planning method?

I certainly subscribe to Silman's advice that you should always play with a plan, which I read in his book, "Reassess Your Chess." I recommend this book, and it certainly seems popular among chessplayers, at least, on this site.

I definitely agree with his advice that you should play the position as the pos ...[text shortened]... ttack your opponents weak points - I guess, accentuate the imbalances, to your advantage.

Therein lies the rub. If I could better learn to recognise and also exploit those imbalances and weaknesses I'd be a much better positional player (defensively and offensively). +2000 players on this site have that ability in greater abundance than others. Any reading on this issue would be welcome.

Originally posted by Yuga
What, precisely, is the Silman planning method?

I certainly subscribe to Silman's advice that you should always play with a plan, which I read in his book, "Reassess Your Chess." I recommend this book, and it certainly seems popular among chessplayers, at least, on this site.

I definitely agree with his advice that you should play the position as the pos ...[text shortened]... help make me a Grandmaster (i.e. a significiantly stronger player), I'd appreciate it). 🙂

I dunno, most books I know of are supposed to take people up to your level. Since you are rated about 1900, maybe you should hire a coach? If that's too expensive (which in most cases, it is) maybe you should buy The Chess Exam by Igor Khmelnitsky. An addition to finding your weaknesses, that book also offers good books to improve induvidual aspects of your game for all levels, from u1200 to 2500.

Originally posted by chesskid001
I dunno, most books I know of are supposed to take people up to your level. Since you are rated about 1900, maybe you should hire a coach? If that's too expensive (which in most cases, it is) maybe you should buy The Chess Exam by Igor Khmelnitsky. An addition to finding your weaknesses, that book also offers good books to improve induvidual aspects of your game for all levels, from u1200 to 2500.

Did my post on here get deleted?!

Originally posted by cmsMaster
Did my post on here get deleted?!

I guess it did I dont see it