On planning and consistency:
Well, OC, having a plan helps you to be consistent.
However, plans may be inconsistent. In one of my comments on an early Malkovich game I claimed that Black's play was inconsistent, by which I meant that his stones were uncoordinated. They did not work well together.
But there is another kind of inconsistency that I have seen in Malkovich games, as well. And that is a failure, as daal says, to carry out your plan. As I recall, Znosko-Borovsky's book,
How Not to Play Chess, talks a good bit about the importance of planning, and of carrying out a plan. Remember that you have an opponent, and therefore you will seldom be able to carry out your plan unimpeded in an ideal manner. One error that Znosko-Borovsky talks about is abandoning your plan when you run into difficulties. True, sometimes your opponent will refute your plan, but more often he will create problems for it. Generally you should not lose heart, but forge ahead. Just because your opponent fights back does not mean that your plan was bad, or that you have erred. But if you abandon your plan you are admitting that either your previous play was in error, or your present play is.
Also, remember that circumstances may change, and new plans should take that into account. Suppose that a joseki in a corner gives you outside strength. You played first in the corner, but your opponent ended up with the territory while you got influence. OC, your earlier play allowed for that possibility. But your subsequent play must be consistent with the fact.
I remember a game against a 4 dan where, late in the middle game, he threatened an invasion on my left side. I did not reply, but played a knight's move in the center to enlarge a central framework that had emerged. Unlike many of my opponents, he did not immediately invade, but paused for a few seconds, and said, "He wants to win."
Now, protecting against the invasion would have been consistent with my early play on the left side, but it would not have been consistent with play as it had developed later.
As it happened, he invaded anyway, I chased him out with sente, and then secured the center and the game.
Note that his invasion was consistent with his plan. Should he have changed his mind after I did not protect? Possibly. But I think that I was ahead, anyway. (And, gathering from his remark, perhaps he did, too.) But he stuck to his guns and invaded. And that is part of the reason, I think, that he was 4 dan. Maybe your judgement is flawed, but that's the only judgement you have. You have to back it up. If you lose, you lose. Learn something and do better next time. If you keep changing your mind and you lose, what have you learned? Only what you have admitted already. You made a mistake somewhere.
