How to create plans in chess? Is it... imbalances?

This might be a hackneyed question, but I am thoroughly confused on how to create plans in chess. I've read books on planning (such as Logical Chess Move by Move, The Art of Planning in Chess by Neil McDonald, and most recently, Silman's Reassess Your Chess), but I still don't understand. Do you create plans (and choose moves) based on imbalances?

But then if that's not how masters play, then how do they play? (How else would you make plans?) Unless that IS how masters play and I've just been misled. Is there something elusive that I'm not getting? My rating is around 1700 USCF, by the way. Thank you very much!

Its a great question! In teaching chess, I get on my students about always having a plan. However, many of my beginning students take this to mean "I'm going to use a combination of Queen and Knight to Checkmate my opponent's King on the 27th move." Of course, this is unrealistic.

Chess is a constantly changing landscape and two or three moves can completely turn a winning position into a losing position. Therefore, plans have to be flexible. That's where it gets tricky. I tend to create flexible plans in which I play elastic moves. Planning really comes into play during the middle game. Once the opening is complete and you have your pieces on ideal squares, you get down to the middle game. At the start of the middle game, I go through a checklist included pawn structure, position of my opponent's King in relation to his or her defending pieces, material balance, etc.

If I'm down material, I create a plan that evens the material balance which repositioning my pieces on good squares. I try to keep it simple and flexible. I think a lot of players have narror plans and when something goes wrong, they find their pieces on squares that do them no good. I try to play elastic moves that prepare for more than one repsonse from my opponent.

My plans change as the game changes. However, I try to play positions that allow me to maintain my original plan while still dealing with the potential curve-balls some times thrown by my opponent.

It's a tough call because you want to have a plan that goes forward but often you have to rethink your plan and alter it to fit the current position. I would say that your plan has to take into consideration imbalances but that is often the cause of a change in plans. A master player can see many more moves ahead than I can so it is easier for them to create a plan that they can stick to. However, Andrew Martin has mentioned on numerous occasions the need for playing flexible moves. I don't know if this was of any help but the question caught my attention so I thought I'd thrown in my opinion. Thanks again for a great question!

LOL. You didn't answer her question. Are plans in chess based on imbalances? Now you're even confusing me!

to make a plan you make a plan. don't play a move until you have a plan. from move 1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think Silman does a good job of explaining it, but to really understand what he's saying seems to take a good deal of experience.

It doesn't have to be imbalances, you don't even have to give it a name, a plan is just a useful action your pieces can undertake in a given position.  You can learn this through experience or by playing through quality games, or if you want to know the mechanics behind it you can read books like you've mentioned.

I have a book "Test Your Positional Play" by Bellin and Ponzetto where they show a position and argue for 3 different plans (only 1 of which is right) and you have to choose.  The best plans are always ones that maximize your activity while allowing your opponent less to play for.

To me, it's all about activity and mobility and I see things like weak pawns, space, and initiative as manifestations of the same idea.

Masters often know by heart the stock ideas for the middlegames they allow to happen, so I doubt they actually work though Silman's process step by step while at the board, but they're certainly taking into account ideas like space and superior minor pieces.

 +1

waffllemaster, you're incredible. Thank you so much.

"The best plans are always ones that maximize your activity while allowing your opponent less to play for.

To me, it's all about activity and mobility and I see things like weak pawns, space, and initiative as manifestations of the same idea."

Nice answer, but its hard to agree with the above lines. First, mobility and activity don't seem to be related to weak pawns, maybe you intended to say "pawn structure"?

Second, I disagree it is all about activity and mobility. In one hand, many openings (those introduced by the hypermodern school) give center domination away to control it - which intentionally reduces mobility for that player, or provokes the opponent to overextend himself (like in the Alekhine's Defense). In the other, certain kinds of positions - mainly closed ones - require rather slow maneuvering  plans and it's hard to talk about "mobility", though "activity" is still pertinent. In those cases, it is a matter of who controls the the rupture point, and the usual plan is to maximize control of the key squares and files / ranks which will be opened after the rupture.

Platogeek: maybe it isn't desirable to think like a grandmaster if you can't play like one. I've tried to play thinking like a grandmaster and found I couldn't accomplish anything. My game improved once I studied principles and ideas and tried to place them in the board... there are too many "how do grandmasters play / think" questions and I think such approach ruins the game experience. Better to keep improving by playing games, studing your mistakes and playing again, now watching your moves not to make the same mistakes again.

And regarding chess planning: despite the fact I haven't read Silman's book, I know its ideas and it is the way I've been playing with good results. The process is to look for weaknesses in the opponent's field or the advantages you have over him (more mobility, for example) and "mount" on them. It is even possible to mount on more than one weakness / advantage and create multiple threats the same time.

For example: think of the c, d and e files. Imagine your opponent plays black and has no pawns in the c file, having one at d7 and one at e7. Now he moves e7-e5 to take action in the center. Have you seen the weakness he created? If you saw the d6 square is now a hole, you guessed right. So, you want a knight there. And if you can prevent black's knight from getting there and avoid an exchange, trading his knight for your bishop, or making pressure on another square and forcing that knight to be stuck defending a piece... wow, I'm planning! And I don't care if Kasparov saw it that way. By the way, are you willing to be a grandmaster someday?

No problem.  I expect only a few people conceptualize it like I do, and I realize my way may not make sense -- much less do I believe it to be the only way.  I chose to throw in my POV at that time because I thought it helped with the point I was making.

I did mean weak pawns though :)  A weakness will necessarily tie defenders to itself and thereby limit mobility.

As for cramped positions, you can have less space and still be active and or mobile.

Again this is my personal conceptualization and I can almost guarantee that when I use these words their definition is a bit different from most people's.  My specific and involved definition is such that the conceptualization is quite correct in every case :)

Plans based on "imbalances" are worthless in blitz or other situations where time is scarce. It's a useful concept for positions that are unfamiliar to us. In fact, I used to believe in the method as well but came to the conclusion that it was impractical even in time-abundant situations.

Instead, I now build my plans based on my past experience with the position. Unlike other methods like the imbalances, trump cards, or candidate moves, this style of play is entirely intuitional and therefore advantateous over other methods.

I can't be said to be entirely crazy either. I've beaten the Impossible Computer (2200-2300 blitz) 6 times and drawn it 14 times.

My advice is

1) Play every opening imaginable (blitz is useful for this) to build your experience in a wide variety of positions.

2) When the game is over, go back and look where you veered out of opening theory.

Chess is just like riding a bike. You have to crash a few times (okay, maybe several thousand) before getting it right. I truly believe the concept of building experience is vastly more powerful than the concept of building theories.

I've never known an author or coach to who doesn't suggest that playing many games is absolutely essential to the improving novice.  So that's good advice :)

Not that it takes away from their books or coaching though.  "I play based off my experience" may be the most accurate explanation that any player can give, unfortunately it offers very little instructional value.

I agree. But at the end of the day, it isn't the mother or father yelling at the kid who really teaches the kid how to ride a bike. It's the kid who found his own way. And this ought to be self-empowering and a huge relief that players can't and shouldn't expect perfection when first learning.

I guess my point is that crashing your bike and learning where you went wrong is the best instruction you can possibly get.

I agree. 

fuc k th law

Maybe "plan" is too grand a word too. If I notice the imbalances, then the "little" things implied by them are my plans. E.g. 

- My central pawn structure points to the kingside = I go for kingside play

- I have the bishop pair = I try to open up the position

- I have knights = I try to get advanced secure vantage points for them (and in the endgame I try to have the pawns on one side only)

- He has a backwards pawn on a half open file = I try to secure the square in front of it and then put pressure on his pawn

- The position is open, his king is still in the center and I'm ahead in development = I consider crashing through with a sac-spree 

And so on, it's nothing big really.

Sure, that is the line of thinking I called a "plan". At least for me as an amateur, it is a practical, usefull idea of planning!

Finding imbalances (or whatever you call it) and having an idea of how to take advantage of them require knowing them, which is acquired through study of positional play. But executing a plan on any given position is probably an art and I suppose it requires experience at first.

I can summarize it so basically first you check for crude threats for your opponent, then you check the good and bad things for you and your opponent like he has a isolated pawn on a open file and you have good pieces you attack the isolated pawn with queen and rook and trade minor pieces example THAT'S how you do it.

P.S a plan isn't supposed to address everything at once it's supposed to address just 1 or 2 things at once and a piece you have doesn't mean you use it for a plan you use both sides imbalances and a piece in itself isn;t a imbalance

You use your positive imbalances to make use of your opponents bad ones!

Cite how to reassess you chess 4edition