I own and have read through "How to Reassess Your Chess," "The Amateur's Mind"
and "The Reassess Your Chess Workbook." I enjoy them very much, but there's one question that wasn't answered in your books. I understand your concept of imbalances, but I don't understand when to implement one idea over another.

For example, there are positions in which I can either play to make a Bishop superior to a Knight, stop the opponent's counterplay, or press forward with my own attacking plans. This all occurs within the same position at the same time. How do I know which plan to pick over the others? Basically, what is the order of priority?

Travis, Houston TX

Travis, this is an excellent question, and one that I've been asked many times. In a way, the need to prioritize is what makes chess so hard. International Master John Watson looks at high-level chess as being "context dependent." In other words, normal positional ideas, rules, and considerations--though obviously important--take a back seat to the concrete needs of a particular position.

Watson's "rule independence" approach (expounded in his wonderful, "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy") is very interesting and, without question, is a reality for the world's elite. At the same time, "rule independence" is an unworkable stance for nonprofessional players. People that want to get a grip on the game need rules to hold onto. In fact, an understanding of these rules and concepts will increase your understanding of chess enormously, and will make you far stronger.

Stepping back to the realm of your question, we are faced with two things that sometimes conflict: chess knowledge and a game's "pace." For basic instructive purposes, we will call this pace "statics versus dynamics." To know what facet of chess knowledge needs to be employed, you also need to know if the position is based on statics or dynamics. This means that you can make your Knight better than your opponent's Bishop, play for a superior pawn structure, or strive for the win of a pawn, but if the position calls for dynamics over statics, you might be barking up the wrong tree.Though I can't give a blanket answer to the question you posed, let's simplify with rules that don't exist at the grandmaster level but are critically important for us mortals:

RULE ONE: The implementation of basic positional ideas gives you a huge competitive edge in static situations.

RULE TWO: Positional and strategic "physics" break down in the face of dynamic situations.

To sum up, it's extremely important to know if the position is a static (slow play) one or a dynamic (fast play) one. Dynamic situations often call for a "damn the torpedoes mentality." In that case, tactics or an insistence on wrestling the initiative from the enemy (by any possible means!) might be the #1 thing to consider. Suffice it to say, then, that an understanding of statics and dynamics is the main tool needed to prioritize and implement the positional knowledge you've acquired over the years.

Jeremy Silman