How Do YOU Move?

What's your thought process when choosing a move? How do you decide which piece to move or which square to move to? How do you decide on which threat is more important and imminent? I'm sorely in need of a more systematic way of deciding moves.

Step 1: follow opening principles.

Step 2: Ask yourself questions. When an opponent plays ask: what did that piece leave behind? (Do the same thing with your own pieces BEFORE you move)

Step 3: Tactics: what piece can be pinned and how can i attack/take advantage of it? Can i deflect a piece guarding a key square? Positional play: How can i improve my pieces relative value? Can i get a passed pawn? Can i get a knight on an outpost? Can i get a bishop pair?

The list goes on and on, but start with that. Oh and the most important:  If you aren't calculating your opponents next move, your going to lose.

You might like this:

http://beginchess.com/2011/06/26/thought-process-checklist/

I generally look for outposts, open lines, weak diagonals of the opponent.

Also look for important pawn breaks, simplification to a favorable endgame.

Center control in the opening is most important.

In the middlegame good aggressive piece positioning.

In the endgame, maneuvering is most important.

1. What is the immediate threat?

For me, an immediate threat is when there is a tactic involved - basically my opponent can take or pin something.

Example: In the Ruy Lopez 3.Bb5 is an immediate threat because it threatens an exchange of some sort - removing a defender and breaking up my pawn structure.

2. Have I cleared out the backrank and connected my rooks yet?

3. What is my worst placed piece?

All threats have been taken care of? Connected rooks? Pieces in good position? Time to attack.

Thank you all for taking your time to answer my question

One big thing that helped me was makeing sure I forsaw my oppenents next move or moves in most cases. If my oppenent ever makes a move I didn't expect, I've done something wrong. This helped me immensely.

I like czechsmex's approach lol

yup just close ur eyes and hope for the best

Whatever you do, DON'T EVER do what a raging fool did at our chess club once.  We play 1 round a week of Game in 90.  This guy was rated about 1100.  He literally, as Black, couldn't deicde what to play between two moves.  He literally took out a quarter, assigned one move to heads, the other to tails.  Whatever he flipped was ...f5 for him.  Not sure what his other choice was, but the one he flipped with the quarter is the side of the coin he assigned to the move f7-f5.

And this was about 15 to 20 moves in.  It's not like he was deciding between a Dutch and some other QP opening on move 1.  This was middlegame!

I'm with stupid!

I find a good move, look at the position for 7 minutes (generally) not calculating much, just looking. Not looking for any candidates, just looking. Yes, looking without thinking. Then I use the last minute to find another move/plan, and play that.

To the left... I don't have much space to move right, all I have there is a speaker, phone, mouse, and a to do reading list -_-

Wait, (yes I know you mean a question on thought process)

I look at the positional imbalances, recall a list of plans and what's typical for this list of imbalances, and in general just make relevent (and not so relevent... not that I know that at the time of course) observations, decide on a plan and candidates.  I ask myself what would an endgame be like if I take this course of action.  A well played chess game smoothly transtions from the opening to middle to endgame, so ultimately our openings should be connected to our endgame strengths at some level.

I try refuting my candidates, like if a bulletproof defense at the end of an exchange sac holds everything just leaving me down the exchange I'll scrap it (though sometimes said "defense" isn't real and there's a move deeper that shows it's not worth eliminating the candidate over, happens to me a lot).  How do I do it?  Look for checks captures and threats, and sometimes seemingly reasonable quiet moves for good measure.  What are these advantages to look for? 

1. Material advantage.  Can you leave a piece en prise for an even bigger advantage?  If not do something to keep the piece safe!
2. Central majority, this leaves options for outposts and a central strike on the table.  Also a pawn center is a good thing to have, but can usually be neutralized and blockaded.  A most obvious and extreme case is the mainline Grunfeld where white is forced into e5 leaving a hole on d4.
3. Passed pawns, these must be kept under lock and key, or else they will threaten to promote!
4. Superior pawn structure, can't have a candidate passed c-pawn without a b-pawn, right?  Thus the option of c4-b4-c5 or b5 attacking c6 is superior to the lack of said option.  Pawn structure, while important, is quite overrated, like space.
5. More suitable minor pieces for your needs.  If you need a lightsquared bishop to defend critical squares but it's been traded off then your opponent has a bishop without a counterpart.

Dynamic advantages:

1. Vulnerable opponent piece.  This is where you can make forcing decisions.  It's temporary since pieces or pawns can defend it, but it would be a small victory if said piece being defended forced concessions.
2. Coordination, how well are your pieces working together?  
3. Central control.  Before embarking on side operations make sure the center is consolidated!  If you can attack in the center, do so!
4. Line control, so controlling important ranks, files, and diagonals.
5. Space advantage.  This offers freedom of movement.  However, Shipov likened more space to a disorderly McMansion whereas in the Hedgehog, where black is cramped, it's easier for him to coordinate.  The less space the more order and therefore it's easier to coordinate!  Space can be an advantage but is one of the harder ones to use in practice since pieces can be forced off leaving just weaknesses behind.

In the 19th century players embarked on silly attacks without the positional basis, people such as Steinitz, Nimzowitsch, Botvinnik, and Lipnitsky advanced core concepts of the game handing down to us their scientific discoveries.  People find beauty in Anderssen's Immortal Game, but where is the aesthetic pleasure to be found in a one sided game where one figures their material is going to find a way to win itself not understanding that the other guy has more than enough compensation in the form of tempi and activity.  Indeed, Einstein debating an old guard (for his time) physicist on the merits of luminiferous ether may be entertaining in a one sided way, but to a modern viewer we'd merely shrug and go, "Einstein's correct, there's no need for a light propagating medium and technology such as GPS depends upon Relativity, no kidding!" And so Steinitz did away with the attack at all costs principle. 

ur not serious right?

Here's some more:

http://www.chess.com/blog/CHESSUSA39/pre-move-checklist

A lot of those check lists can be quite time consuming at first, but after enough time it becomes like second nature.  A master once noted to me that he had been playing chess for so long that he "just has an idea where the pieces should go." 

I don't really know how to put into words how I make my moves, and what my thought process is.  I just do my best to play the moves that experience has shown to be at the very least, decent.  As you progress and have more games and more losses under your belt, you'll develope your own second nature :)

I usually make random moves, like czechmex.

It sound like this:

"When you see a good move, look for a better one."

Lasker