|
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
For those of you who are good at planning I have some questions. First some thoughts: I've noticed that the games in which I have a definite plan, even a flawed one, go far better than those in which I just try to make the best move possible. I tend to plan short term, having a small goal based on some positional or tactical advantage I can see. Then when that plan is completed I develop a new plan.
I'm working on making sure that my current plan leads to positions which offer me not just an advantage, but a new goal to plan for. Often after I complete a plan I get stumped and need some time to figure out where my play is. I've also found that my plans sometimes end me up with a a material advantage, but a positional deficit such as pieces not working together well anymore. Its like after the skirmish my army is disorganised and milling about uselessly.
So how do you practice your planning? Do you prefer one long term plan or a series of short term plans? Do you look for positional or tactical plans first? What books or advice do you think are really helpful for learning to plan?
Thanks for any thoughts.
|
|
|
I use a series of short term plans, mainly because my analysis gets real shakey after 5-6 moves.I always consider positional concerns first.The first book i use is "Point Count Chess" by:I.A. Horowitz. It deals with evaluating the static features in a given position i.e. half-open files,space,bishop pair, etc. Lately i depend on "Pawn Structure Chess" by:Andrew Soltis and "The Art of the Middle Game" by: Keres & Kotov because any plan must take into account the present and near future pawn structure to be effective. Of course, tactics are vital to any plan but i feel that solid positional play can reduce your opponents tactical opportunities as well as provide you with a flexible basis for exploiting any tactical shots available.
|
|
|
I also found that "Point Count Chess" was helpful. In fact, I actually use it's point counting method, though I find that it is too subjective to count heavily upon it. When I purchased Silman"s "Reassess Your Chess, I fount a lot of the themes he dealt with had been covered in "Point Count Chess, and it was only $2.95 when I bought it (new)in 1970. I might also suggest obvious books like Nimzovich's "My System".
Two books I found very helpful in learning to plan were Nunn's "Understanding Chess Move by Move" and Chernev's "Logical Chess: Move by Move." I find studying chess games is still the best way to learn how to play chess, and these books explain why each move was made and the plans/objectives for them. After finishing the books, I found myself seeing games in a new light and seeing things I might have missed before. 
|
|
|
"How not to play chess" by Znosko Borovski is a book that I keep with me at all times. I have found no better book to start studying the middlegame. You are asking a very difficult question that requires a number of answers: Some of us calculate variations, others go by positional considerations and there are some that mix both approaches. Problem is: You conceive a nice plan and while excuting it you miss an intermediate move that throws away all the efforts... I have been there, I have done that, I keep on doing that...
| I've also found that my plans sometimes end me up with a a material advantage, but a positional deficit such as pieces not working together well anymore. |
I don't mind having material advantage so long as I can take care of immediate threats and be able to transform that material advantage into something more tangible. If coordination of the pieces is an issue I concentrate on that matter even at the cost of returning material.
|
|
|
|
|
