Analyzed games

Hello Chess World I have a question for you. Can someone please explain for me the scoring system when having you moves analyzed. Of course the commentary speaks for itself, but the scoring has me confused. For example, you might have a move score of .045 with a depth measured in a fraction. Is the score cumulitave or just a percentage or what? The depth, I thought, was how long Chessmaster or whatever engine took to calculate, but I've seen people use it as well.

  Also, I have a more general question. When studying chess, I've heard many times that I should study the endgame first. Which I am doing. But should I pour all my efforts into that, ignoring the openings?  (at least for a bit) Or try to do a little of both. Great sight by the way, it's become my home away from home so to speak.

you should study endgame and tactics and ignore the opening almost completely if you are starting out. because it teaches you nothing. once you get good enough, you should then look at the opening. but you should know the basics openings, control center, knights come put first then bishops, move the king side pieces so you can castle, etc.

Thanks for the reply.  I know the first few moves of most openings, as well as opening theory, which helps of course. But I was stuck at where to go from there. As I study the various end games I was starting to worry if I would even make it that far against a solid player. Now I just need to understand the scoring system for analysed games. I win very often against the computer but just get the feeling I'm walking into a minefield. I understand the commentaries of the strong players, after the fact, but strive to find the subtleties of positions of few moves before the obvious spankings. So any thoughts on the scoring system would be greatly appreciated.

I don't have any real software, but I believe (and I can be wrong) that when a number such as .65 follows a variation or a line, it indicates what the computer deems as the amount of the advantage (or disadvantage) based on "1" = "pawn."  .65 then would mean a bit more than half a pawn advantage.

 

I don't see how anyone can learn to play chess unless they approach it holistically. Endgame knowledge is of course important, just as are tactics. But you'll never reach an endgame without some opening knowledge. This doesn't mean memorization (though that takes place with every game you play), but trying to learn the reasons why certain moves are made in certain openings. Tactics alone won't get it either because tactics flow from position. So you also need to learn about strategy and positional considerations. Everything goes hand-in-hand, just as some openings lead to certain endings. I think one needs to concentrate on the entire picture with the emphasis on understanding rather than memorizing.

very nice