End position visualisation or move by move

I am trying to study some games, and to understand them. As i see, there are a lot of combinations, different motives, strategy, positional play and so on.

I would like to know how do you proceed to choose a move:
1. you look at a move, „calculate“ it and hope for the best „without“ knowing the outcome (i do it a lot, and lose a lot), or
2. you visualise an end position, and try to work backwards, and you have a move that initiates it. Or
3. look for all the weaknesses, make somehow a plan, and try to follow it. Or
4. experience, try and error or
5. maybe a combination of all above.

I make a lot of one move patzers, sometimes i do not see the best move, or i see it, but i discard it, because i did not believe that it was the best. I am trying to change my approach, to get better, but i would like to know which one it is the best.

Maurice has said he works somehow backwards, botwinnik took a two move approach, silman recommend the weaknesses, so it is not clear, which one is the best. What is the best in your opinion?

Thx a lot in advance

If you actually can calculate something to the end, obviously that's best. But since you rarely can do that, the most important thing is coming up with a plan.

@MrPushwood thx for the input. But somehow to calculate till the end, as brute force, we are already have an exponential function. If it is only forced moves, it is ok.

In the games i am analysing like the games from morphy, alekhine, capa, fischer, kasparov, ..., they came with moves, i would never consider. And by me, i saw a move, tried to calculate it, maybe 3-4 moves ahead that i thought would bring something, but at the end brought only my resignation. I try to make a plan as well sometimes, but somehow the high rated opponents refutes it easily.

And in the games mentioned as well they (masters like you) came with plans, that they are 30+ moves ahead. And here i am after 5 moves „lost in the translation“.

Thx again

@Haymarket thats true. But right now, there are no such books, which explains the ideas behind of the moves. Only the very old ones, you could understand a little more. Sometimes the book says only the move x is the best. Why? No explanation. Or could you recommend some?

I went through the logical chess, the 60 memorable games, modern chess move by move, my carrier, and to understand more about the strategy, positional play, some books like nimzo and pachman.

Thx

I give here an example:
Game 7 from 300 (tarrasch)
Move 15: why black castles gets a exclamation mark? Because it is giving the pawn back? And how has tarrasch came with the idea of nfd5 on the move 16?
(1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc4 3. Nf3 d6 4. c3 Bg4 5. d4? ed4 6. cd4 Bf3 7. gf3 Qh4 8. Ke2 Bb6 9. Nc3 Nc6 10. Be3 Nf6 11. Na4 Nh5 12. Nb6 ab6 13. d5 Ne7 14. Kd2 Nf4 15.Qc2 0-0! 16. Qc7 Nfd5 ...)

I know it is somehow some tactics, some strategy involved, how do you guys came with these ideas? Lol

In the given example, if i used brute force maybe i could come to the moves of the game, but simply put: nop, i would never come to the castle and especially the Nfd5!. And i do not see a plan here behind.

Thx

I think an experienced player will do a lot of things sub consciously. They will look at a position and get a feel for what both sides are trying to do, and sense whether or not there could be some tactical opportunities, both obvious ones and ones that might be a bit more concealed. Then their brain will start spitting out ideas. From these ideas and from past experiences in similar positions they will form some sort of plan, always making sure that their ideas are tactically justified. So there is always some sort of calculation, in varying depths. Sometimes it isn’t deep at all. What I’m trying to say is that a chess player will depend a lot on their intuition, which has been constantly fine tuned over the years, and then calculate accordingly.

@magicsacrifblunder said in #3:
> And in the games mentioned as well they (masters like you) came with plans, that they are 30+ moves ahead.

No, nobody is thinking 30 moves ahead. :) And incidentally, "brute force" is only something that works for comps...

@Le_Patzer83 said in #7:
> I think an experienced player will do a lot of things sub consciously. They will look at a position and get a feel for what both sides are trying to do, and sense whether or not there could be some tactical opportunities, both obvious ones and ones that might be a bit more concealed. Then their brain will start spitting out ideas. From these ideas and from past experiences in similar positions they will form some sort of plan, always making sure that their ideas are tactically justified. So there is always some sort of calculation, in varying depths. Sometimes it isn’t deep at all. What I’m trying to say is that a chess player will depend a lot on their intuition, which has been constantly fine tuned over the years, and then calculate accordingly.

Pretty accurate observation, now I don't have to write it all myself. Thank you! :)