I think all those thing are very Important.There aren't the most Important because they are all Important.

Being a beginner, I find tactics most important, then the endgame.

F.e. opening traps are based on tactics, the better I know tactics the less likely I am to fall for one of them.

Same story with positional play - as far as I understand it, it is principally defensive, but you can only defend when you know how to attack (then you can imagine how the opponent can attack you, and then realize what is the weakness of your position). And attacking is based on tactics again.

tatics!

Opening is the most important part of the game, If you get a cramped position out of the opening, even if you play the middlegame really good  you will always be worse.

All the elements are important in chess.  Neglecting one thing is like a missing leg on a 3-legged stool.   If one leg is missing, the whole thing falls! 

However, according to Polgar in "A World Champion's Guide to Chess"  beginners should focus on Tactics and the endgame.  She said there's too much emphasis in American chess on the openings.  I agree.  Why?

I studied as much as possible many varieties of openings.  However, I was "pushing wood" thoughtlessly.   I was looking for an easy solution to conquer the enemy.  

I noticed that although I was winning the opening, I was losing the game.   I would cave-in on the middle-game because I simply did not not see opportunities to weaken my opponent.    Tactics are key to seeing that opportunity to attack (forks, pins, skewers, double attacks) or even defend if losing badly (stalemate).   

Endgames are critical to learn according to Polgar as well to avoid endlessly checking and losing an opportunity to win (a draw or stalemate).    

Hence, I've been feverishly focusing on solving puzzles in her book for these tactics and I've noticed remarkable improvement.   I think the tactics trainer here on this site is OK as well (yet quite random).  

I think overall I've heard it said by a Chessmaster (can't remember) we should "win the opening, middle-game, and the endgame" to win in chess.  

I have a checklist of what I'm doing... and the key question I ask is:  What is the biggest tactical threat against me right at the moment!  Then I look for all checks, captures, and possible tactical opportunities.  For every piece (both sides), I look at what that piece can capture.   This mapping really openings my eyes to some big mistakes.  I then check King safety and look for possible mates.  When it' my opponent's turn, I think of a longer strategy that is less tactical, i.e. I'm going to attack Kingside.  

As far as studying openings, I've found the King's Gambit (accepted or declined) an exciting open-position to try out your tactics.  You better castle early, but if you can attack fast this proves to be an exciting tactical game for both sides as opposed to those cramped games kogmeg alludes to previously. 

In conclusion, consider purchasing Polgar's book if you are a beginner.  It's the best I've found for PRACTICAL chess rather than just reading about chess.  

Interested to hear other's thoughts. 

Mark

Opening. I am a little rusty at endgames. Middle games not so bad. But I am perfect at openings !

I am weak in the opening phase,   good in the middle game and positional play, i believe this is my strongest phase, weak in the endgame, average in tactics.

experience, with experience you can handle with all situations with ease.
with some hard positions you don't have to think at all.
then comes positional play for me, I miscalculate too much to rely on my tactics, which are mostly tricks anyways. Position and patience got me most victories.
Openings are overrated if you ask me. If you know the basic principles behind opening at all, anything goes.
There is even a good chance you are playing a book opening if you just want to open up and develop a few pieces.

Was there not a chess.com poll on this subject?

I'm brilliant at setting up the board, with the little white square in the right place, and the queens on their same coloured squares. I've seen grown men weep when I've set up a board.

Joking aside. I learnt to play using an eletronic chessboard, so the board is positioned in the correct way. The first time I set up an actual board I got it all wrong, light shade of square in the wrong corner and therefore the queens were wrong also. So, most important thing to learn - how to set up the board :)

Oh, and if your a beginner you don't need to learn openings (in my opintion) just the fundamentals of the opening, develop peices, do not go taking the queen out, castle, move peices once and to a square where they won't be chased, nae too many pawn moves, fight for the centre, eh, that's it all is it, Rich, did I miss anything?

I have no weakness! I suck equally everywhere.

They are all very important.

Yeah I'm with DPG1232!

ka151 wrote:

Yeah I'm with DPG1232!

Thank you for your support.

They are all very important, of course. You can see anything anywhere in chess, so play your best through the entire game, i dont believe in whole strategies, only do what you see and what is logical.

All the phases of a game are important of course. But, a very good end game is the essence of a very good chess player. 

The corn tortilla chip, spicy cheese, and jalepeno all have to come together harmoniously to make the perfect snack.... sorry, wrong forum. In all seriousness though, we are trying to disect the whole and say which is better. Lunacy. That's like asking which is better at keeping you alive, your brain, heart, or lungs. Well, I like them all a lot actually!

Actually the questions is subjective. All the phases in chess etc. are very important. They have a relation with each other. I think the common sense or logical in chess is to find the best moves, whenever you are in bad or good positions. Being a good player you can't measured only in opening, middle, endgame etc. but in all phases of game.

opennings