Training plan for strategy / evaluation of a position

You cannot train strategy at that level. You won't understand it. Firm foundation of personal openings repertoire, tactic patterns, and basic endgames first. And most of all a lot of slow games.

So first consider this:
How is a game won?

• Mid-game checkmate
• Promote pawn
• Trade everything down into won endgame
  How can a player force draw?
• Perpetual check, often with queen against exposed king
• Build a defensive formation that cannot be broken through without heavy losses.
• Trade everything down into a drawn endgame

So then you evaluate the position in terms of these aspects. The default evaluation is material, the player who is ahead has always an implicit threat of trading everything down, and it's on the other player to disprove this. Maybe he can build an attack before, with checkmate? Or maybe an attack that can only be stopped by giving up material?

Then there are many strategic concepts that are useful to learn. The more concepts you know and the better you know them the more accurate your evaluation will be.

These are things like "isolated pawns" (weak and this could in the long term lead to them being lost, and a material disadvantage, eventually the "extra" pawn for the opponent may be promoted).

Or "open file" for rook which can help it perform "rook infiltration" and attack the other position, maybe the king or pawns or both?

I think at first you should know which things are good and bad. HOW good and HOW bad (should you accept disadvantage a to get advantage b?) this is very advanced, maybe have to be learned through experience? also think ahead, what is likely to happen? Say can you compromise your king safety a bit for material, well do you think you can defend the attacks?

@Move_In_Silence_2024 said in #21:

You cannot train strategy at that level. You won't understand it. Firm foundation of personal openings repertoire, tactic patterns, and basic endgames first. And most of all a lot of slow games.

I don't think I can agree, understanding strategy is a key part in chess. I already resigned (or ask for a draw) in positions where I was completly winning or think that I was winning while I was completly lost. Sure, strategy isn't the main issue as a beginner but saying that it's useless, that I cannot agree with. Also, how could anyone understand an opening if he doesn't understand the strategic plans behind it ?

@EDTA532 said in #23:

I don't think I can agree, understanding strategy is a key part in chess. I already resigned (or ask for a draw) in positions where I was completly winning or think that I was winning while I was completly lost. Sure, strategy isn't the main issue as a beginner but saying that it's useless, that I cannot agree with. Also, how could anyone understand an opening if he doesn't understand the strategic plans behind it ?

I feel lost (strategically and positionally speaking) in almost every game I play. I put it down to my low knowledge of chess and my low ability at chess plus playing Rapid 15 + 10 games. Trying for slower 30 + 20 games just means waiting forever for a game. I try to learn some openings but people depart so early from the opening theory that I am bewildered and on my own by about move five.

So preparing for and hoping to execute plans that work almost seems a bit futile at this stage. You can try for closed or semi-closed system openings and there is a bit more chance of having a plan work then. But still most of the time poor tactics will trip you up. I have decided to believe the higher level players and coaches who emphasise a lot of tactical work for new players. I am also trying to play more open tactical games and just rely on tactics. Maybe I will even get brave enough to try a few gambits.

I have no idea if this approach will work for me but coaches like Andras Toth recommends beginners play traditional open openings, in the main, and learn how to handle the different pawn structures. As far as strategy and plans go, I will try to learn what pawn breaks to look for in my opening reptoire amd try to make them. And try to know which flank I should be attacking on and if and when to counter in the center.

But if I don't get considerably better at tactics, then all other learning will be relatively useless for me, in my opinion.

@Move_In_Silence_2024 said in #21:

You cannot train strategy at that level. You won't understand it. Firm foundation of personal openings repertoire, tactic patterns, and basic endgames first. And most of all a lot of slow games.
@EDTA532 said in #23:
... I don't think I can agree, understanding strategy is a key part in chess. ... Sure, strategy isn't the main issue as a beginner but saying that it's useless, that I cannot agree with. Also, how could anyone understand an opening if he doesn't understand the strategic plans behind it ?
Many many beginner books were written by people who thought that there was some value in giving attention to subjects like "I. Planning II. How to Analyze a Position" (about 18 pages in Chapter VI of Chess the Easy Way by Reuben Fine).

@Wodjul said in #24:

I feel lost (strategically and positionally speaking) in almost every game I play. I put it down to my low knowledge of chess and my low ability at chess plus playing Rapid 15 + 10 games. ... I have decided to believe the higher level players and coaches who emphasise a lot of tactical work for new players. ...
httpscolon//lichessperiodorg/EP3FWJ5p
After 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Be7 4 O-O Nf6 5 d4 d6, you used ~158 seconds, arriving at the decision to play 6 Nc3. For your first seven moves, you played at an average rate that would have made sense if you had expected the game to be over after 27 moves. If I remember correctly, a few weeks ago, you resolved to play at an average rate of ~28 seconds per move. I do not think that that was ideal, but it would be a lot better than ~43 seconds per move. Tactical work is certainly important, but I do not think that you can hope to be done with a game by move 27 by relying on tactical work alone.
After 6 Nc3 O-O 7 Bg5 h6 8 Bxf6 Bxf6, you used ~193 seconds to choose 9 d5. By that point, you had been playing at an average rate that would have ended the game after move 19.
@Wodjul said in #24:
... I try to learn some openings but people depart so early from the opening theory that I am bewildered and on my own by about move five. ...
"... there will come a time, whether on move two or move twenty, when your knowledge of theory runs out and you have to decide what to do on your own. ... sometimes you will leave theory first, sometimes your opponent. Nothing will stop this happening. It happens in every well-contested GM game at some point, usually a very significant point. This is a part of the game: an important part, something you have to get better at. ..." - IM John Cox (2006)
"... I am not a big fan of weaker players memorizing lots of opening lines they will never play. However, it is quite a different issue to spend a small amount of time learning how to play your openings a little better each time they occur. A long journey begins with a single step. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2005)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627023809/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman50.pdf
After 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Be7 4 O-O Nf6 5 d4 d6, the machine seems to think that 6 d5 would have been better than 6 Nc3. What would you have done if norflex500mg had decided to reply to 6 Nc3 with 6...Bg4 ?

@kindaspongey said in #26:

httpscolon//lichessperiodorg/EP3FWJ5p
After 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Be7 4 O-O Nf6 5 d4 d6, you used ~158 seconds, arriving at the decision to play 6 Nc3. For your first seven moves, you played at an average rate that would have made sense if you had expected the game to be over after 27 moves. If I remember correctly, a few weeks ago, you resolved to play at an average rate of ~28 seconds per move. I do not think that that was ideal, but it would be a lot better than ~43 seconds per move. Tactical work is certainly important, but I do not think that you can hope to be done with a game by move 27 by relying on tactical work alone.
After 6 Nc3 O-O 7 Bg5 h6 8 Bxf6 Bxf6, you used ~193 seconds to choose 9 d5. By that point, you had been playing at an average rate that would have ended the game after move 19.

"... there will come a time, whether on move two or move twenty, when your knowledge of theory runs out and you have to decide what to do on your own. ... sometimes you will leave theory first, sometimes your opponent. Nothing will stop this happening. It happens in every well-contested GM game at some point, usually a very significant point. This is a part of the game: an important part, something you have to get better at. ..." - IM John Cox (2006)
"... I am not a big fan of weaker players memorizing lots of opening lines they will never play. However, it is quite a different issue to spend a small amount of time learning how to play your openings a little better each time they occur. A long journey begins with a single step. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2005)
web.archive.org/web/20140627023809/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman50.pdf
After 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Be7 4 O-O Nf6 5 d4 d6, the machine seems to think that 6 d5 would have been better than 6 Nc3. What would you have done if norflex500mg had decided to reply to 6 Nc3 with 6...Bg4 ?

Yes, I can't deny that I still freeze and agonise over moves in the opening and early middle game when I feel lost. Then I play faster because I have to and that leads to more blunders. I cannot see tactics quickly. In fact, I can hardly seem them at all unless they are really simple one or two move tactics. Even then I often miss the simplest tactics and an oppoent's hanging pieces like I did in the game referred to. I am trying to move faster. What is freezing and inhibiting me? Total lack of confidence and fear of making a dumb mistake I guess. It is irrational of course. I have to find a way to beat it. It is paradoxical. Sometimes one has to care less about winning to free oneself up to win. If I could build my tactical vision a bit and build my confidence in my tactical vision that would help.

Pretty sure my progress is going to be very slow. I am a rather volatile and impatient person. Always have been. So it may seem very strange that I go slow and freeze in chess. But freezing is a kind of almost involuntary strategy to avoid anger outbursts and social faux pas. I am an old dog trying to learn new tricks.

It don't come easy as that great philosopher, Ringo Starr, sang.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu8bj3Vb8zI

@Wodjul said in #27:

... I can't deny that I still freeze and agonise over moves in the opening and early middle game when I feel lost. ... I cannot see tactics quickly. In fact, I can hardly seem them at all unless they are really simple one or two move tactics. Even then I often miss the simplest tactics and an oppoent's hanging pieces like I did in the game referred to. I am trying to move faster. ... If I could build my tactical vision a bit and build my confidence in my tactical vision that would help. ...
I wonder if you are losing time, looking for tactics in positions where there simply aren't any.
"... Tactics are certainly extremely important in chess, and are probably more so at the under-1800 level. However, his entire approach is based on checking if your opponent has any tactical threats and seeing if you can execute a tactic yourself. But what do you do in the 90% of positions where neither of these is the case? ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... Logical Chess [(Batsford edition by Chernev)] ... a collection of 33 games ... is definitely for beginners and players who are just starting to learn about development, weak squares, the centre, standard attacking ideas, and the like. In many ways, it would [be] a wonderful 'first' book (or first 'serious' book, after the ones which teach the rules and elementary mates, for example), and a nice gift for a young player just taking up chess. ..." - IM John Watson (1999)
https://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/assorted-recent-books
https://www.amazon.com/Logical-Chess-Every-Explained-Algebraic/dp/0713484640?asin=0713484640&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1004861
Maybe try one of these:
Better Chess for Average Players by Harding
https://store.doverpublications.com/products/9780486290294
"... Irving Chernev’s The Most Instructive Games of Chess Every Played was ... originally published ... in 1965. It contains sixty-two well analyzed games, each one possessing both artistic and educational value. Now Batsford has republished Chernev’s book in algebraic format, ..."
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/most-instructive-games-of-chess-ever-played/
By the way, the verdict of the books seems to be to play 4 d4 (instead of 4 O-O) immediately after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Be7.

"I wonder if you are losing time, looking for tactics in positions where there simply aren't any." - @kindaspongey

That is certainly true. I am wasting a lot of time doing that. My confidence that I will see tactics (and even hung pieces) is so low that I am laboriously checking and re-checking the same stuff over and over to see if I can see deeper or even see basic things. But I certainly can't see deeper yet.

I just did some Lichess Defensive Move Puzzles and did so dreadfully badly that I was swearing like a navvy, cursing like a trooper, the whole time. (My wife was out.) My lack of ability to see opponent threats and calculate them was brutally exposed. I was aghast at how hopeless I am. Guess I know one puzzle category I really need to work on. It shows I am extremely bad at figuring out my opponent's replies and attacks. I am actually a bit worried. I am 70 as I might have mentioned before. I may have to face the fact that my brain is too old (loss of neural plasticity and demyelination to name two possible issues) to learn anything really new to any significant or effective level. It's not looking good so far but I will keep trying.

Maybe I am expecting progress too fast, especially for an oldie. I guess every player of any age faces roadblocks on the journey. Chess is about 1,000 times deeper, more complicated and difficult than I ever thought it would be. The human mind always underestimates exponential growth (of the move tree possibilities in this case) and what it means.

@Wodjul said in #27:

... I can't deny that I still freeze and agonise over moves in the opening and early middle game when I feel lost. Then I play faster because I have to and that leads to more blunders. I cannot see tactics quickly. In fact, I can hardly seem them at all unless they are really simple one or two move tactics. Even then I often miss the simplest tactics and an oppoent's hanging pieces like I did in the game referred to. I am trying to move faster. What is freezing and inhibiting me? Total lack of confidence and fear of making a dumb mistake I guess. It is irrational of course. I have to find a way to beat it. It is paradoxical. Sometimes one has to care less about winning to free oneself up to win. If I could build my tactical vision a bit and build my confidence in my tactical vision that would help. ...
@kindaspongey said in #28:
... I wonder if you are losing time, looking for tactics in positions where there simply aren't any. ...
@Wodjul said in #29:
... That is certainly true. I am wasting a lot of time doing that. My confidence that I will see tactics (and even hung pieces) is so low that I am laboriously checking and re-checking the same stuff over and over to see if I can see deeper or even see basic things. But I certainly can't see deeper yet.
I just did some Lichess Defensive Move Puzzles and did so dreadfully badly that ... Guess I know one puzzle category I really need to work on. It shows I am extremely bad at figuring out my opponent's replies and attacks. ...
Perhaps it would help if you took a second look at some of those positions where you previously spent a lot of time. Consider, for example, that httpscolon//lichessperiodorg/EP3FWJ5p game where you spent ~158 seconds looking at the position after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Be7 4 O-O Nf6 5 d4 d6 and identified nothing better than 6 Nc3. MAYBE, this was because you lacked the ability to identify a much better move, but some post-game investigation can reveal that the machine ALSO fails to identify anything much better. It claims that 6 d5 would have been a LITTLE better (perhaps ~.5 in your favor instead of ~.3), but, in the game, would it have been worth using more than two minutes of your precious time in an attempt to identify that slight improvement? As far as the MACHINE can tell, there was no puzzle-level tactic to be found.