# Help, 1600+ Players!

I have been studying Silman's books (Reassess 4/e, and Endgames) recently and most of the doubts have been resolved along with reading.

However, an important unanswered query is here: According to the book, key/critical position is relative, meaning that, a position, with many ideas and plans can be critical for me, but may be simple for my opponent. My question is, at once I reach a key position, I workout my plans/ideas and make a move, and my opponent replies, and this happens several times, until I reach another point where I feel my position is critical/key. Between these two/subsequent critical/key positions, am I supposed to: 1. evaluate every position after each move made,

2. continue with my plan, or react to opponent's ideas, or

3. view the position resulted by a move, or view the position as a whole (not considering what opponent did, taking into account 'what is on the board NOW, regardless of what opponent did.')

4. any or combination of the above or something else that I need to know.

I was hopefully understanding my third point as Statics v/s Dynamics, but it is not. Should the game should be seen as a movie/story extending from opening to a favorable endgame or it is just to play in the position irrespective of previous moves?

This is a good and complex question, so I'm not going to answer directly but go through a simplified version of my thought process.

After the opening, I try to formulate a plan based upon mostly other games that I've seen. Others, like Karpov, are famous for first stopping the opponent's play/plan first. Find the best path to get the pieces into my plan; playing the most noncommittal moves first.

Every move I first evaluate if any tactics are on the board. Next is to evaluate if my plan is still viable. (If I was planning the Greek Gift and my opponent played g6, I would need a new plan.) Finally, if I have time, examine my opponent's move to see if a new weakness was created and if I can exploit that easier than my current plan.

Some plans are short, get my knight to the outpost on d5, while others can take you to a winning position, by exploiting the weak dark squares I force him to push the pawn to d6 which weakens the knight on c6 so I can play Nxe5 winning due to the under-protected knight and the pin to the rook on a8. So changing plans in the middle may be necessary, while others just have to be postponed a few move.

Stories for Alekhine and Capablanca. The first comment in http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1013013. People were evaluating an endgame, and Capablanca just moved the pieces to where they belonged. He didn't care about how they got there just where they belonged. (I'm sure that he cared, but in an endgame there are less tactics to worry about.) An example used is http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1064780, although nobody seems to mention that white killed his own counterplay by closing the kingside on move 21.

That's a lot of information and it was tossed out without much explanation, so if you want a more in-depth answer just ask.

@jonesmh :

"I try to formulate a plan based upon mostly other games that I've seen. Others, like Karpov..."

Holy s**t, this is a little bit like saying "Me... (..theory/plan/bla/etc...). Others like Einstein..."

And i solved yet another puzzle.

"1. evaluate every position after each move made,

2. continue with my plan, or react to opponent's ideas, or

3. view the position resulted by a move, or view the position as a whole (not considering what opponent did, taking into account 'what is on the board NOW, regardless of what opponent did.')

4. any or combination of the above or something else that I need to know."

1. yes of course.
2. continue if possible and indicated, change plan if opponent's ideas demand it
3. what is on the board now, but that is only 1 move different from what was on the board 1 move ago. So except if opponent did something radical like sacrifice something, most of the previous reasoning will be more or less valid
4. Indeed, a combination of above

Well, hopefully when you are formulating a plan or calculating a sequence, you need to be at least aware of possible counterplay by your opponent. If they play a line that you are happy with, you can continue with your plans. If they play something unexpected, then you should re-evaluate as necessary.

@Makropoulos
Maybe I should restate that.
I form a play based upon the pawn structure, where the pieces are and what the weakness are present. This plan is formed by what the experts have concluded from the multitude of games that they have studied. Mostly these are plans of attack, however my friend Henry prefers to reduce counterplay and/or stop the opponent's plan. The plan adopted is based upon not the position but the temperament of the player.

This seems too verbose and more complicated than needed. As I said, this is my thought process, but I didn't want to make the impression that mine was the only correct way, so I gave and example of a famous person who thinks that the priority are different. I also suggest that instead of just providing criticism, that you make a useful contribution.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.

Reconnecting