Where to start?

My needs are minimal: I just need serious work on openings, middle game, and endgames - with special attention to tactics and position (perhaps some study of pawn structure would help as well). 

I am looking to openings first, and need to understand on a yeomans level the stengths and weaknesses of the E4 against various defenses. I tried some blitz games and was absolutely crushed, mostly due to a lack of knowing the lines.

This is an awesome site, but a trifle overwhelming as well. I feel like I am drowning in a wealth of resources, and am in need a solid starting point - preferably something that will make an immediate difference in my game. That being said, if a basis needs to be established first, I won't shrink from the work.

Any suggestions?

I am fairly new here myself, and it seems that most of us need work on something! There are no perfect players here. (Well, not outside of their own minds anyway!) The best place to start is to play games, then play some more games and then play some more games, and if you can learn from your mistakes you will improve.

The Tactics Trainer here is quite good, but while theory and learning openings will help in the long run, the best experience you will get - in my opinion of course - is by playing games and trying different things out... If you are worried about your rating here, then just look for unrated games.  

Here are a couple of suggestions :

1. If you can afford it, get a coach to help you
2. Have a look at this first set of chess mentor courses to brush up the basics, then this course to work on some basic tactical patterns
3. Try a couple (meaning 2-3) tactics exercises per day
4. Enjoy David Pruess' extremely instructive videos for beginners and up

Good luck 

+1

Also, continue playing. Maybe blitz, maybe standard, maybe correspondence, but do try to learn one thing from each game you play. 

Thanks for the responses guys. A special shout out to hicetnunc - that was what I was looking for I think.

My rating does not bother me, and since I am so new here I am certain that I am over-rated. I don't like to lose though (who does?) and the primal beatings I took in the blitz games made me back off and massage my ego for a while (am I really THAT bad? lol). But you're all right of course - get back on the horse!

Speaking of David Pruess - dude had me close to tears I was laughing so hard during one of his videos on openings. He was discussing the f3 opening move and how horrid it was. Good stuff!

Do you remember which video?  I need a good chess laugh.

It's at the top of the Video section for me Danny - Every Chess Opening: The First Move. Very basic beginner stuff, but his treatment of the f3 opening tickled me.

Incorrect. You lost because of a lack of basic tactics and looking ahead.

Correction noted and conceded Loomis. 

I agree with VectorMyth's earlier statement and disagree with Loomis...

When a 1200-level gets trapped early in the game by a 1000-level, it is simply because the 1000 knew the line and the 1200 didn't.  It is NOT because the 1000 is tactically stronger than the 1200...that is garbage.  It is because the 1000 *memorized* and played like a 1600-level player for a few moves (more like fake-played).  The opening lends itself well to this form of fake-skill-level presentation.  It is almost unfair and does make chess960 that much more attractive.  

So there in lies the rub and therein lies the temptation to at least have an opening repertoire (through move 6? move 8?) that will negate most of these tricks.  

It's not that the opponent is "better" at tactics. It's that you tactically failed. An opening "trap" is nothing but a tactic you failed to see.

dannyhume, are you making these ratings up? Who is a 1200 in the games under discussion. Here is a game of VectorMyth:

Here is one he lost early in the opening

David's videos are very good.  I was reading Nigel Short's "e4-e5" (it's called something like that).  He gives black's "best responses to e4 after e5. Probably more for advanced and professional players.  I think I will go over some tactics and study annotated grandmaster games.

Thanks for looking at the games Loomis, and the comments. I'm honored. What is missing on the first game posted is my clock. By this stage of the game I was hurting on time, and rushed into blunders. It was the reason I mentioned lack of opening knowledge as a factor in the loss. I spent WAY too much time in the opening developement, costing me valuable thinking time at the end.

The second game cannot be argued with, even lamely.

Given that, your original assessment is spot on! It is a lack of tactics knowledge and foresight that ultimately dooms me. 

I was being hypothetical, not referring to VectorMyth's actual level or games.  

I am all for tactics tactics tactics at the lower levels, but the next thing that seems to give more bang for buck is opening *memorization* (not "principles", I understand the distinction).  

At lower levels, opening memorization is not to get a "+/=" advantage that one has no idea how to convert, but rather to NOT get a "-+" disadvantage by being down a piece (or checkmated).

Since everyone must play the opening, I don't understand why people do not recommend *memorizing* the first several moves of an opening (just a small fraction of study time).  It will instantly improve your rating.  You don't have to spend all of your study time doing this, but if you spent a fraction it does help and the rest of your time you are devoting to tactics anyway, so combined they provide the most practical results for the lower-level...they get better at tactics and they avoid opening tactics (since most beginner chess is over in the opening or middlegame, a large number of "tactical" errors will occur in the opening.

best way to improve tactics is practice - use tactics trainer here and chesstempo and chess.emrald.net

You specifically disagreed with my comment regarding VectorMyth's games.

 Hello, Vector

I would suggest you keep playing 'down' until you are playing people of your own strength (or, ideally, about 50 points stronger). Then, as and when you lose games, look back and try and pin point where you lost - and learn from it. Easier said than done - but it will help.

Best wishes - and this is indeed a great site.

I reread the posts...you are correct.  I am sorry.  

I thought your response to VectorMyth's post about being crushed in blitz was a pithy philosophical generalization/rationale for the typical beginner's woes (e.g. "you don't have an opening weakness, you have a tactical weakness") rather than a specific assessment of actual losses.  

The discussion is helpful for him (and me and others who are weak amateurs).  Your insight is appreciated/helpful even though I directly challenged it, but you answered.  I am going to watch IMaster Dave's videos for the needed laughter.