Could you post the game where you felt this way. It might be easier to give you advice using a game that you played as an illustration.
Speaking in generalities, the position on the board plays a huge part on assessing what is happening and determining the best plan to proceed. When the position undergoes a major change to the point where you have to throw out your current plan, you simply have to reassess the position, determine a new plan, and attempt to execute it.
Here are some reading possibilities that I often mention:
Simple Attacking Plans by Fred Wilson (2012)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708090402/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review874.pdf
http://dev.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Simple-Attacking-Plans-77p3731.htm
Logical Chess: Move by Move by Irving Chernev (1957)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708104437/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/logichess.pdf
The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played by Irving Chernev (1965)
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/most-instructive-games-of-chess-ever-played/
Dont read those outdated books. The best way to get better at your level is tactics tactics tactics
Dont read those outdated books. The best way to get better at your level is tactics tactics tactics
Every hack's advice
Dont read those outdated books. The best way to get better at your level is tactics tactics tactics
Every hack's advice
Its true, 90% of games are decided by tactics at the low level. I recommend this especially since he asks for help in complicated positions where sharp play is required
Dont read those outdated books. The best way to get better at your level is tactics tactics tactics
Every hack's advice
Its true, 90% of games are decided by tactics at the low level. I recommend this especially since he asks for help in complicated positions where sharp play is required
Certainly a beginning player should concentrate on tactics and simple calculation. You can’t get better at chess if you’re constantly being surprised when the opponent forks your king and queen, or just takes an unprotected piece! But even for the beginner I think a diet of tactics, tactics, and even more tactics isn’t very nourishing. Just shuffling your pieces around until your opponent falls for a knight fork or a discovered check isn’t very satisfying and doesn’t do justice to the richness of the game
In a sharp position, there is no substitute for calculation. Your first question after your opponent's move is whether it threatens anything. If so, you either have to deal with the threat or determine that it isn't serious enough to distract you. If there is no threat that you have to deal with, look for your opponent's biggest weakness. It could be an inadequately defended K, or an overextended set of pawns, or a misplaced and vulnerable Q or other piece, or simply a weak square, rank, file, or color complex, etc. Whatever weakness you decide to aim for, look for forcing moves. If you can't find any, look for a way to bring your pieces into play against the weakness. Pay special attention to getting your least active piece into the fray.
This is all kind of vague without an actual position to look at. As suggested above by @lostpawn247, it would be helpful if you would post a game where you have had the problem you describe. Adding your thoughts, such as why you made certain moves, would make it even more helpful.
" it would be helpful if you would post a game where you have had the problem you describe"
Yes.
A solid plan, meaning rigid?
A flexible plan, position of pieces and pawns which allows options, is what you should strive for.
....that was the worst interpretation ever. He means by solid that it is good, hard to break, and gains a better position.
Btw, to the original maker of this thread. If the board is dynamic, try for tactics, don't try long term plans. In closed positions, go for plans.
I never reading books about chess and never going to class , I wanna to know which book is better for me ? of course i'm not a beginner player .
I never reading books about chess and never going to class , I wanna to know which book is better for me ? of course i'm not a beginner player .
well, I only use books for opening study, and if you are looking for a good, solid opening choice with bountiful material on it, try the Colle
"... Just because a book contains lots of information that you don’t know, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be extremely helpful in making you better at this point in your chess development. ..." - Dan Heisman (2001)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626180930/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman06.pdf
"... The books that are most highly thought of are not necessarily the most useful. Go with those that you find to be readable. ..." - GM Nigel Davies (2010)
"... If it’s instruction, you look for an author that addresses players at your level (buying something that’s too advanced won’t help you at all). This means that a classic book that is revered by many people might not be useful for you. ..." - IM Jeremy Silman (2015)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-best-chess-books-ever
"... [annotated games are] infinitely more useful than bare game scores. However, annotated games vary widely in quality. Some are excellent study material. Others are poor. But the most numerous fall into a third category - good-but-wrong-for-you. ... You want games with annotations that answer the questions that baffle you the most. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2010)
A solid plan, meaning rigid?
A flexible plan, position of pieces and pawns which allows options, is what you should strive for.
....that was the worst interpretation ever. He means by solid that it is good, hard to break, and gains a better position.
Btw, to the original maker of this thread. If the board is dynamic, try for tactics, don't try long term plans. In closed positions, go for plans.
I would normally agree, but my intention was to focus on types of moves to support plans. A solid plan that was easily shattered by an unexpected move wasn't very solid after all was it? A more flexible plan based on perhaps a piece that can be easily relocated and perform a different or multiple roles is what I meant. Allowing (at least attempting) to design your moves to create tactics.
You don't always need long term plans. Plans can change (as OP said) rather quickly. Being able to adapt is what you want.
I couldn't elaborate without an example, just shared my stupid opinion.
But you can suggest trying for dynamic tactics, even though there may be none available at the present time.
im not calling your ideas stupid, and I agree with a flexible plan. I called the notion of solid meaning rigid bad
Dont read those outdated books. The best way to get better at your level is tactics tactics tactics
Every hack's advice
Its true, 90% of games are decided by tactics at the low level. I recommend this especially since he asks for help in complicated positions where sharp play is required
Certainly a beginning player should concentrate on tactics and simple calculation. You can’t get better at chess if you’re constantly being surprised when the opponent forks your king and queen, or just takes an unprotected piece! But even for the beginner I think a diet of tactics, tactics, and even more tactics isn’t very nourishing. Just shuffling your pieces around until your opponent falls for a knight fork or a discovered check isn’t very satisfying and doesn’t do justice to the richness of the game
No that's not the point of learning tactics. Please don't give bad advice to beginners, as a beginner player yourself 
How do you come up with a solid plan when the board is so dynamic? I recently played a game where I looked a few steps ahead and formed a solid plan in my opinion, but then the opponent made an unexpected move that completely shattered it. Then I made a new plan, and again it was obliterated because of a move I did not really expect him to make, because it didn't really benefit him in the short term, only in the long term because of my plan. I lost that game in frustration because I came up with multiple plans and none worked. The game is so dynamic and unpredictable that I cannot see through it. Any thoughts?
If the position is truly dynamic then long term plans are not possible (or at least not useful). You need to do cold hard calculation.
Even in quite positions, sometimes plans are not possible (or at least not useful). In those cases you look for small improvements in the short term. Karpov was very good at this.
And even when long term plans are possible, they're always tempered against tactics. Part of the beauty of chess is that you have to satisfy both the long term and the short term demands of the position. Forming a plan and then having to rethink everything because of an unexpected move can happen at any level, but particularly at a low level this happens all the time because of missed tactics.
So yeah, focus on tactics and don't worry about plans other than stuff like keep your pieces active, keep your king safe, and keep your pawn structure at least somewhat healthy.
How do you come up with a solid plan when the board is so dynamic?
Have you read through my posts in this thread?
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/gm-larry-evans-method-of-static-analysis
They occupy several pages.
It's worth noting that "a plan" is nearly worthless since the opponent is not likely to just passively allow you to execute it. "Planning", however, is essential. With proper planning, your intentions can guide your tactical calculations.
"... with the latter process I hope to be able to attain to a position that I have in mind and try to find out whether ways leading up to that conceived position may not start from the given position. Can I, by method, by systematic procedure, start my antagonist on the way to the position I aim at? This is the question uppermost in the mind of the positional players and this is the essence of plan making. ..." - Lasker's Manual of Chess
How do you come up with a solid plan when the board is so dynamic? I recently played a game where I looked a few steps ahead and formed a solid plan in my opinion, but then the opponent made an unexpected move that completely shattered it. Then I made a new plan, and again it was obliterated because of a move I did not really expect him to make, because it didn't really benefit him in the short term, only in the long term because of my plan. I lost that game in frustration because I came up with multiple plans and none worked. The game is so dynamic and unpredictable that I cannot see through it. Any thoughts?