What's a plan?

If a plan involves certain piece(s) DONT LOSE/TRADE THOSE pieces!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by ketchuplover
If a plan involves certain piece(s) DONT LOSE/TRADE THOSE pieces!!!!!!!!!

ok, i feel tempted:

but what if the plan involves trading/losing pieces???

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi DT

Would you say Black's strategy was to go for the Queenside play
and this was accomplished with a series of mini plans, the last of which
was ganging up on the b2 pawn.

It appeared White was waiting for you do something and then react.
I'm guessing he was the lower graded player.

Here: Instead of his 23.h4

[fen]1r4k1/3q1b1p/2n2 ...[text shortened]... nd bring the King to b3!)

Nice and instructive as always....Your posts are too infrequent.

Hi Geoff

Yes, my overall plan was to attack on the queenside,
and this consisted of a series of mini plans, which could be altered or discarded
at each stage, depending on the concrete position on the board.

For instance, I originally intended to make more use of my rooks,
but became worried about potential threats from my opponent's rooks
in the centre or kingside and therefore decided it was safer to exchange them off.

White was lower rated, but not by much. He has an ECF rating in the 170's
(that's about 2000 Elo).

I did expect him to do something to thwart my play on the queenside.
There were various points at which he could have made things more difficult for me.

For instance, instead of 16.a3, 16.b4 looked better, trying to seal up the position on the queenside.

I saw the possibility of 23.Ba4 during the game and hoped he wouldn't play it!
It makes sense to exchange the bishop which isn't doing much for Black's
potentially more active knight.

I think the reason he didn't make this trade is because he was still dreaming of a kingside attack
and was hoping to use the bishop somehow,
such as sacrificing it on f5 at some stage, to smash through Black's pawn wall.
I kept my queen on d7 for a long time to guard against this possibility.

If he had played 23.Ba4, I probably would have just exhanged on c3
and accepted that the game was heading for a draw.

Originally posted by WanderingKing
People keep saying that you need a plan. I have never had one and I have no idea how to have it. I just can't understand the concept.

When I see that some move wins material or leads to checkmate, or pawn promotion, or impoves a piece, or whatever, I make the move, but I don't think it's a plan, is it? I understand it must be long-term and uncertain ...[text shortened]... he enemy king. How do I say to myself, "Now, I'll attack the queenside." How do I choose?

A plan is when you make a move for a reason other than trying to attack a piece or simply putting a king in check.

Once you have a reason for making a move, you will get better.

Cheers DT.

Glad you feared Ba4. Not saying I would have held it. I hate defending
single static weakness positions without anything to get my teeth into return.

Always had trouble with the terminology between plan and strategy.
I blame writers who mix the two up.
(they cannot even agree as to what is exactly a 'combination.'😉

I've always gone along with Gerald Abrahams whose chapter in the
Pan Book of Chess: "How Battles are Won - or Lost, Seeing, Thinking, Judging,
Tactics and Strategy." was one of the first I read on the subject(s).

An excellent book that one. Somewhere in there is 'don't get down hearted
if you blunder.' Good positions don't win games, only good moves do.
(.....and you can play good moves from bad positions.) 🙂

Originally posted by tharkesh
ok, i feel tempted:

but what if the plan involves trading/losing pieces???

Then proceed as planned! (presuming the plan is sound 🙂)

Originally posted by ketchuplover
Then proceed as planned! (presuming the plan is sound 🙂)

Even a bad plan is better than no plan.

At least you can learn from a bad plan!

Originally posted by Eladar
Even a bad plan is better than no plan.

At least you can learn from a bad plan!

c.f. my previous post. 😉