I have been thinking a lot about planning of late, especially with regard to its connection with intuition and minimalism. It will be difficult to describe my thoughts on this in such limited space, but I’ve become convinced that elaborate plans are, by their very nature, hopelessly flawed.
The more elaborate a plan, the more there is to go wrong at every stage of its realisation. And this is without considering the role of the opposition, whose goal is not just to refute various plans but to lie in wait for the obvious ones, constructing his game to meet them most effectively.
So should one actually have a ‘plan’ as such, or is the entire concept flawed? I’d say it needs some adjustment in that a ‘plan’ must have enough inherent flexibility to change at any moment. And what characterises the game of strong players is the way that their moves often seem ‘multi-purpose’, fulfilling a role in multiple potential plans.
Traders might find this concept useful too; rather than have a single ‘on-off’ switch to one’s trades it may be far more effective to make multiple adjustments in position size and instrument depending on an overall assessment of the market and the extent of an advantage.
What I found in my professional career (software development) is that plans always need to be amended, our assumptions will invariably turn out to be not perfect
. What required then is the mental toughness to deal with changes. Some people just don’t like changes. Some people know that there will be changes, and go through them with fearful hearts. Some go through changes as just-work-need-to-be-done. It is the last group of people who can be best planners, they are more resilient because their mind is flexible, and can carry a project through to the end.
btw, off topic. Few days ago I received Paul Kere’s Grand Master of Chess (the 3-in-1 complete games volume) Oh man, the man can annotate. For a mere 15.00 USD (used book price, postal included) I get 80 world class games, (and more importantly) firs rate annotations. I think if I study his games and annotations I probably won’t have to read a how-to-play-middle-game book.
By: roamingwind on October 8, 2009
at 5:48 pm
Hi Roaming Wind,
Ah, you got the Arco edition! Yes, this is really fantastic, a treasure trove of writing by one of the greatest players in history in a volume that fits into most coat pockets.
With planning I think there are some differences between combat and non-combat zones, mainly that in the latter (chess, markets, warfare) there is a malevolent force which is actively trying to destroy our plans and even use them against us.
Best wishes, Nigel
By: ND on October 8, 2009
at 8:22 pm
Easier said than done! It’s extremely difficult for a novice (too generous of a word) neophyte like me to make “multi-purpose” moves in chess but that challenge is simple compared to making such “multi-purpose” moves in life – especially when it comes to raising children. I find a comprehensive life plan impossible and somewhat meaningless, because it sets one up for constant disappointment when events fail to materialize in expected ways; but limited planning can be quite healthy and fruitful. Goals help me remain on track but the steps are determined along the way.
By: legacy daily on October 10, 2009
at 2:46 am
Hi, Nigel:
I concur that even the best prepared ideas (planning) can require altering thoughts, especially in response to the adversary’s play. In this I like to consider “jump moves”, those steps leading to the type position I want and #moves required. The question then becomes one of realistic fulfillment in viewing probable opponent replies. If reasonable, is my conclusion to the pending position good for me, equal or my opponent.
I have found that using my “square-count” theory often works in these cases since choice is often subjected to a move improving sqct or as a defensive measure against that of the opponent.
Capablanca noted a very interesting observation in his Chess Fundamentals that often the best move is that which reaches into the opponent’s camp. An example is Bf4 or Bg5; his suggestion aims at the Bg5 idea since it strikes moreso into the enemy and likely effects the choices for both sides.
I personally like to plan my game play from the very lst move which sort of gives me a good feeling and then try to play strategy within my understanding of chess. It helps me to keep track of my general planning and if I feel I made good choices to that end, it gives confidence.
By: kindredspiritks on October 10, 2009
at 12:18 pm