Decline of the tactics...Please read and comment.

Most beginning players are focusing more on getting a solid opening strategy rather than tactical play, and in my opinion, that's not good. Do you think solid opening strategy or tactics is more important?

Tactics is 99% of the game...........as an example, the tactics trainer on chess.com and the chess tutor also in chess.com ........tactics.....tactics

That's a good question, and many beginners do try to focus on the opening.  It's vital to know the opening principals and good to know a few moves in 2-3 openings you like to play but that just takes a few example master games to illustrate and after that you should leave the opening alone.

Any strong player or coach will tell you that the opening is the last thing beginners should be worrying about, and that tactics are the #1 thing to get a handle on, second is probably basic endgame like how to promote a pawn and give a backrank mate, although these are almost like tactics anyway.

So yes, tactics are more important.

Thats one vote for tactics: Tactics:1   Openings:0

You are right.  I've spent tons of time on opening stuff...and I don't think it has helped my chess at all.  It does, however, make it easier for me to play out the perfect first 5 ply to many of the Sicilian, Italian, Philidor, Scotch...KID, etc...without looking it up. 

So do you think tactics or openings are more important, orangehonda?

Okay, I vote for tactics!    Tactics:2

                                       Openings:0

Tactics only take you so far.  At a certain level an inability to come out of the opening on a roughtly even footing is a fatal weakness that no amount of tactical prowess will overcome.

The good news is that almost all of us are quite a ways away from that level so boning up on tactics should continue to bear fruit.  I certainly wouldn't recommend that a beginner start with anything more than opening principals and the first few moves of the most basic and common openings, especially not at the expense of tactics which, along with some engame basics, are probably going to give the most value in terms of improvement per time spent for new players.

interesting...   any votes, anyone?

It says in my book, "chess tactics for juniors"' that limited opening knowledge and superior tactical play can result in a class a player. that is almost 2000 rating!

That sounds right -- there is a 1900 USCF (for people unfamiliar that's around 2300 turn based here) player at my club who doesn't know hardly any openings past move 4 or 5, but he has solid tactics and endgames so it doesn't matter.

btw in my above post at the end I voted for tactics I don't think you'll see anyone voting for openings btw, tactics are stressed by everyone at about every level.

yes tactics for me (and what everyone should be saying)

of course a lot of us know it to be true, but get sucked into learning a new instead of blasting at more tactics. I am a class B player and my tactical level goes hand-in-hand with that. in generally does

ok, thanks orange honda!    Tactics:3

                                        Openings:0 

Tactics is smoking the competition! 

btw, that was my 100th member point!

I think endgames (and endgame principals) are the most important thing to teach in chess.  Tactics come second.  Studing openings is only for finding an opening that fits your style.  After that, just knowing kings Indian is enough.  Tactics come in second to endgame principals though. 

tactical knowledge is by far more important than opening knowledge.

Tactics for me

At your level, yes.  But a beginner should be able to come out of the opening with reasonable changes against another beginner without having to be booked up.  At that level the study of tactics will give much quicker results than the study of openings will.

I agree with those who say beginners don need openings too much. But at what level would you all say serious opening study become necessary.

geek wrote:  "Well if you are a math teacher in the California Public School system you're not allowed to teach calc, trig or even algebra. But you are allowed to teach the kids how to sing songs about the standing president. No wonder California schools are failing."

What are you talking about?!  Do you just make this stuff up, or what?