In Online Chess You Must Plan Your Play And Play your Plan Part 2

I discussed many ideas in the previous article; if any of those ideas don’t seem clear, take your time, work through them. There is no reason to rush through this course. If I talk about a position, set it up on your chess board; Look at it on the screen. Take your time and make sure you understand the idea of my plan. Remember, in general, when you are studying chess, if your brain hurts, if you are pushing yourself, you’re stretching your mind, then you are learning. If you are just playing through variations, if you don’t strain to try to understand subtleties of the position, then you are not going to be learning. Basically, you are going to get out of chess as much as you put into it.

One of my teammates has asked me some questions related to my first piece. Here is his message:

I am curious to find out how you determine a plan. I know that the opening is the main factor in determining a plan, but after each side has done their best possible moves how do you determine a plan after you’ve developed your opening?
It seems that it is hard to make a plan that remains consistent throughout the game, which brings me to the basic question, what types of attacks are there and how can you recognize an attack like queenside attack based on early to mid game positions? I ask these questions in a game where there are no immediate advantages or obvious gains. An example opening that I have difficulty with is the four knights game which is exactly even. I am able to recognize attacks based on weak positions but I find it hard to maintain that plan when the best move is employed by my opponent. What type of plan would you go with on this type of opening? I sometimes find myself just trading off pieces with no endgame objective and a mess of pawns to clean up. How can I overcome these problems? Thanks.

I found that the answers could be of much help to other players on chessmaniac.com, so please read it patiently. If you have any comments, feel free to share with me…


It will be easier if you think of a plan as a wish, something that you want to happen. As an example, in the Morra Gambit (1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3), white's initial plan is to quickly develop all of the pieces. Then Black's d-pawn should be backward. It is on d6 and cannot be defended with another pawn because the c-pawn has been exchanged and the e-pawn will be on e5.
This is the resulting position in the main line of the Morra Gambit; it appears after (4…Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 e6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Qe2 Nf6 9.Rd1 e5 10.Be3 0-0 11.Rac1).



Note that black cannot force an exchange of the knight vs. bishop by playing 11…Na5 because of 12.Nxe5! Black cannot capture the knight by the d-pawn because it is pinned to his queen.

Therefore, white's logical plan is: Hold d5 square so black's weak pawn cannot advance, keep pressure on the d-file with the h-rook on d1. Use the d5 square as an outpost. When the attack comes, use it to transfer forces to the side of the board where they will be needed. Force black to defend this weak d-pawn, tying up his forces; not capturing the pawn until it is tactically favorable to do so. The normal attack from this position is Queenside, using b5 as well as d5 for positioning of the minor pieces.


The decision to attack kingside or queenside is made by either pawn position, piece position or both. In an unbalanced pawn front, as occurs in many opening where one side (we will say White) has three pawns on each side of the board and the other side (we will say Black) has two pawns on one side and four on the other, it will be natural for either players to attack on the side with the pawn majority. This is always an attempt to force a passed pawn, although it sometimes leads to a mating attack when it occurs on the kingside.

Although, the minority attack is often used, this is to restrain the majority and make it more difficult to establish a passed pawn. The overall plan in this case deals with gaining or preventing a passed pawn.

Most of the gambits are played with the plan of developing quickly and attacking the kingside. The f-pawn is a usual target. Look at a typical King's Gambit and White's plan is very clear: Attack f7 before Black can get the king to safety. It depends on development and tempo.

Some themes for plans are:
a. Opening the board or closing the board. This depends on several factors:
First, which side do open lines favor? Second, which side does time favor? Third, is the player Steinitzian or Morphian? Which does the player prefer, a tactical game or a positional game?
b. The passed pawn. Gaining a passed pawn is a huge step toward winning.
c. The two bishops. The two bishops on an open board are much more powerful than any other minor piece combination.
d. Attack on the king; Bringing about a position that enables a successful attack on the King's position.
e. Weakening the pawn structure; Creating doubled or isolated pawns, opening lines to the opposing king.

I base my plan primarily on pawn structure, when faced with an equal adversary. When faced with a weaker adversary I base the plan on rapid development, and continuous attack.

Here is what I look for in pawn structure:
1. Opening lines. I want open files for my rooks. The opening determines which pawns will exchange and therefore the square on which I should place a rook.
It's easy in gambits: Kings Gambit, the f-file will open, so my h-rook goes quickly to f1. In the Morra gambit, the c-file and the d-file will open, so my rooks jump to d1 and c1 quickly.
In closed games, I pick the file I want to open, this becomes my PLAN.
Once the file is open, I want to do two things: first, get both rooks on a file or adjacent open files. Second, transfer the rooks to the seventh or eighth files. That becomes my plan.
I want open diagonals for my bishop(s). If I have one bishop and my opponent has a bishop of the opposite color, I want to use my pawns to trap it or to block it. I prefer blocking an opposing bishop with his own pawns, where possible. Where I have the bishop pair and my opponent does not, I want to trade off the entire center pawns to open up the board for the bishops. This becomes my plan.

2. If there is a weakness in the opponent's position, wear it down. An example is the backward pawn.

Here is a less obvious example from the Rossolimo variation of the Sicilian defense: (I played this game few years ago in a local rapid tournament, I was white) 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.Bxc6 bxc6 5.d3 Bg7



The Black bishop enjoys a fine diagonal and it is the only piece Black has developed. The plan now is to restrict this bishop:
6.f4! White must now strengthen his center, leaving his knight on g2. This interferes with early castling.
6...e6? (a strategic suicide! d6 is better because it somehow prevents e5 by white).
7.e5 Our plan has succeeded, the bishop is restrained. Now we can consolidate the position and attack on the queenside! The Black kingside knight and bishop are out of the action and the Black king remains in the center. Black's center pawns block his pieces.
7...d5 8.Nf3 a5?! (a dubious move; black is ignoring his development by trying to get space on the queenside. Much better was 8...Ne7 preparing short castle.)
9. Na4! (This is the most direct way to punish black for his immature play. Nimzowitch says: "First restrain, then blockade, finally destroy." Black has totally lost the strategic battle, so it is time to bust him up. )
9... Qe7 10.c4 Ba6 11.b3 h6



It is very interesting that only after making 11 moves, black is now in huge trouble! White to move, can you find the best move here?

Note that black's c5 pawn is very weak. It is defended only by his queen and cannot be defended once again right away. It is also attacked by my knight on a4; so if I can add another attacker to it, I will win it. You found the right move?
Yes, 12.Ba3 with a winning position. My opponent resigned after a few moves.

3. A strong pawn center can provide a winning plan.
Here is such a plan developed on move #16:



(This is from Sakaev vs. Belov, Krasnoyarsk 2003.)

16.f5!! Brilliant; White gives the knight in order to consolidate his center pawns!
16...exd4, 17.cxd4 Now, the center is imposing!
17. ... Rfe8, 18. f6 Bf8, Qc1!



Now, white plans: Bh6, Bxf8, Qh6, Qg7#.


4. Restricting an opponent is a good plan. Here is a position seen in a match of Carlsen vs. Malakhov, 2005:



Here it is Black to move. The position appears peaceful, but black must achieve the c6-c5 advance in order to prevent a bind on the queenside.

10...Nbd7, This appears to be a reasonable move, but the c-pawn requires Black's attention. Even a sacrifice by c5 immediately is only a temporary sacrifice and frees up Blacks' position.
11.e4 Nb6 12.Bf4 Be6 13.Qc2 Bc4 14.Rfd1 Rc8 15.Rac1 Bxe2 16.Qxe2



White's options include:
1. Pressure along the c-file, attack the backward c-pawn with doubled rooks and
Ne5, Exploit the hole on c5 by putting a knight on it. Notice that we cannot do both of the latter two. We must choose.
2. Pawn advance in the center: e4-e5 would drive the knight from f6, strengthening a white king-side attack, clear the way for Ne4 and Nc5 to exploit c5, lessen the scope of the bishop on g7.
3. Direct attack on the kingside: advance h4-h5 to open the h file and undermine g6, challenge the defensive bishop with Bh6, maneuver the queen to h4 and play Ng5.

Carlsen decides that the way to set Black most problems is with e4-e5, Ne4 and Nc5; seizing c5 and a kingside attack.

16...Qd7, 17.h3 Qb7, 18. Bg5 Rfe8, 19. e5! Nfd5, 20 Ne4 Nd7, 21. Qd2! Qb8, 22. Bh6 Bh8, 23. h4!



Very mature play by the young grandmaster, and the plan is well on the way to fruition.

5. Exploiting a positional weakness: This is the highest level of planning, what to do when the position offers you no obvious path forward; such as attacking the king, turning a pawn majority into a passed pawn, or picking up a weak pawn. Exploiting intangible positional weaknesses is an indicator of a strong player. In master play, you rarely see obvious blunders; instead, the one who better exploit tiny little weaknesses in opponent's position will prevail.

Here we will look at exploiting a hole; this is a match of Cheparinov vs. Ivanchuk 2005:
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 (The Benko Gambit; interesting but risky opening) 4.cxb5 a6 5.b6 (Declining the gambit is a sound strategy against black's opening preparation!) d6 6.Nc3 Nbd7 7.a4 a5 8.e4 g6 9.Nf3 Bg7 10.Be2 0-0 11.0-0 Qxb6



White sees a weak square on b5. His plan is, therefore, to place a knight there and support it. This will deprive Black of counterplay against b2 and also keep him from attacking the center with e7-e6. This will secure my queenside and keep my space advantage in the center, so I can start a kingside attack based on f2-f4 without being disturbed.

Let's see how it works out:
12.Nd2! Ba6 13.Nb5 Rfb8 14.Qc2 Qd8 15.Nc4! Nb6 16.Nca3! (All aiming for b5-square) Ne8 17.Rb1 Nc7 18.b3 Bxb5 19.Nxb5



White is not winning yet, but his strategy is dominating.
You can find these games that I reference here on chessbase.

Finally I would like to give you some clues on how to plan the game in “The four knights game”.

Start with reaching the following position: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bb4 5.O-O O-O 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.d3 Bd6 8.Bg5 h6 9.Bh4 c5 10.Nd5 g5 11.Nxf6+ Qxf6 12.Bg3



Black to play: you can select your plan from each one of these three options. It depends on how you would like to continue your game.

Plan A: Take advantage of the Bishop Pair.

I think the most significant strategic element in this position is possession of the Bishop pair against Bishop & Knight. To get the most from this advantage I must try to open up the game and free my Bishop on d6 which is currently trapped by Pawns. I would also like to get rid of my doubled Pawns on the c-file.
I therefore decide to play 12...Be6 with the intention of continuing ...Rad8 preparing the advance ...c4.
The idea is to give the position a more dynamic character (opening of the d-file and the a3-f8 diagonal) so as to take full advantage of the Bishop pair. If, to thwart this plan, White decides to play c4, this would seriously weaken his d-Pawn and give me an excellent objective.

Plan B: Attack on the Kingside.

In contrast to Plan A, I think I have to keep the center closed as this element allows me to organize an attack on the Kingside using the Pawns of my castled position which are in any case well on the way up the board.
However, White’s King is solidly protected and there are no breakthrough points. So I decide to play ...Bg4 with the intention of profiting from the pin on the Knight on f3 so as to organize the opening of the f-file, e.g. by ...Qg7 and ...f5.
To prevent this plan, White will probably answer with 13.h3 on which I intend to continue 13...Be6 having achieved the goal of weakening my opponent’s King’s position to create a breakthrough point (h3). My idea then is to prepare the thrust ...g4 by ...Kh7 and ...Rg8.

Plan C: Trap the Bishop on g3.

The unhappy position of the Bishop on g3, which is stymied by my Pawns, suggests that I can engineer a simplification favorable to me. As in Plan B, I play 12...Bg4 but after the likely ...13.h3 I intend to continue 13...Bxf3 and if White retakes with the Queen I will also exchange Queens. In the ending arising out of this simplification, the Bishop on g3 will be completely immobile because on h4 I can maintain the Pawn vice by ...f6. Thus for the rest of the game I would virtually have an extra piece. To free his Bishop, White would have to give up a Pawn and waste precious time.

So, in conclusion:
I choose my openings partly because of the type of endgames they produce. Sicilian setups, for instance, are typical for attacking players because they offer chances at directly attacking the opponent's King.
But usually something alters my original plans. Then I often picture myself a realistic setup of where I want to be in 15 or 20 moves. I look at what I need to do to get there and start executing the “plan.” My choice is often based on weaknesses in the opponent's position. Is his Kingside a fortress? Then I focus for example on queening a Pawn, if not, the other way around.
If I don’t see a clear path, I focus on where my own strengths lie in the position and then try to reinforce that strength. I do (try) keep it simple and realistic... where things become too complicated I try to simplify.
Another important issue is checking statistics on an opening and/or position. The perfect website to do this is http://www.chesslive.de/
You can enter the position and see for yourself what kind of results it produced.

Alfred J. Wood and Alex Dion
Play free online chess at ChessManiac.com