Intentional Chess Theory

Before I begin, I want to thank my coach for being supportive of my play style, and acknowledge some of the groundwork for this view by Mauricio Flores in their book, "Chess Structures," as well as the general idea of taking a different approach when things aren't working vouched by Jonathan Rowson in "Chess For Zebras."

I am currently an intermediately rated player, primarily active in the crushing world of 1+0 Bullet. What can I say? Either I think its fun, or I am a glutton for punishment, but I think it might be both.

For years, I struggled with the standard way chess is taught. Traditional "Algebraic" thinking—the linear, if-then-else string of calculation—always felt foreign to me. While my opponents seemed to be reading the board like a spreadsheet of coordinates, I was seeing it geometrically. I saw shapes, pressure points, and structures. I have always been a broad ideas kind of guy -- not a details type. I play plans based on heuristics -- general guidelines and principles based on the shapes, structures and tactical motifs on the board.

Over the past year, I’ve worked with a National Master to stop fighting my nature and start weaponizing it. As a result, I've built a Heuristical Framework—a system of 15 "Strategic Modules" that provide the roadmap for my play. Through this process I have gained around 1000 rating points in a year.

A Critical Note on Tactics and Calculation

Let me be clear: This theory does not replace calculation. You cannot win at chess by "feeling it out" while hanging your Queen. I still do many tactical puzzles daily, study, practice and work with my coach.
However, calculation is expensive. In Bullet, you have a limited "mental budget." My 15-point theory acts as a Strategic Scaffold. It tells me where to calculate and what to look for. It filters out the noise so my tactical vision can focus on the moves that actually matter. It is the General that tells the soldiers which hill to take. All of this is to say that this view of chess may not be objectively best, but it will give you a better starting point.

The 15-Point Heuristic -- Intentional Chess Theory

I. Opening: The Intent (Moves 1-10)
I’ve abandoned "opening lines" for "opening blueprints." Not to be confused with focusing on system openings, my goal is to manifest, and understand one of five "Intents" of what I or my opponent plays." I consider "openings" as "plans" rather than an actual opening.

1\. Classical: Occupying the center \(d/e 4/5\, example plans: the Italian\, london\)\.
2\. Fianchetto: Controlling space via remote long\-range interdiction\. \(double fianchetto inclusive\, example plans: kings indian\, hippo\)
3\. Defensive: Building an elastic shell \(d/e 3/6\, example: french\, white/black lion\)\.
4\. Flexible: Developing pieces while maintaining maximum tension by refusing to commit pawns\. \(Nc3/c6/f3/f6\, example plan: Nimzowitsch\)
5\. Flank: Anchoring the center via auxiliary pawn levers from the sides\. \(a\-c\, f\-g pawns\, example plan: caro kann\)

note: transposition can be much more fluid in this view. For example, an opening might start as defensive like the plans in the lion, but transpose into the hippo, and even further into the kings indian.

II. Middlegame: The Structure (The Geometric Phase)
When the board "hardens," I look for the Pawn Skeleton. The shape of the pawns dictates the tactical "weather":

1\. The Phalanx: Side\-by\-side pawns\. Goal: Bulldoze\.
2\. The Wedge: A deep spearhead\. Goal: Cramp\.
3\. The Chain: Diagonal links\. Goal: Directional Attack\.
4\. The Stonewall: The "Cross" formation\. Goal: Total Denial\.
5\. The Isolani: The lone island\. Goal: Opening and Pushing Lanes and Targets\, especially in front of a rook as a passed pawn\.

III. Endgame: The Conversion (The Scramble)
In 1+0, the endgame is a test of nerves. These five filters guide my proactive decision-making:

1\. Simplification: Liquidating into a "solved" win when up in material\.
2\. Complication: Creating chaos to force a blunder or a "flag" when behind \-\- unsound checks may guide a poor king run for your opponent\.
3\. Evolution: Shifting all focus to the promotion of a Passed Pawn\.
4\. King Run: Activating the King as a lead attacker or a "time\-drainer\."
5\. The Flag: The intentional "Time Attack\." Using checks and diversions to win on the clock\.

note: these can also transpose into eachother quite easily. What may start as simplification might be met with complication, causing you to get into complicating the game, which may lead to more unsound checks to force the king away for a promotion of a passed pawn, which leads to a king run for your opponent, which could ultimately lead to a flag. All can be seen in a single endgame.

Why I’m Sharing This
I am not a Grandmaster handing down "The Truth." I am a player in the trenches, just like you. I’m sharing this because it works for the way my brain is wired. This theory is a living system; I use it to keep my thoughts consistent and my decisions fast. As I continue my climb toward 2000, I want this system to harden and grow alongside my rating. So I am sharing it because I want it to get better and more refined, making me a better player in the process -- I guess you could call it selfish that way.

If you’ve always seen the board in shapes rather than lines, stop feeling like you’re doing it "wrong." You just need a better compass.