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

ok

but some people disagree on this, as I read in the comments.

Tactics:19

Openings:7

Equal Importance:5

This isn't even a topic really.

It's like asking whether water or crisps is more important.

Sure, crisps are nice, but water is vital for life.

?

I think you'll be safe recording a vote for tactics, based on Marv's comment.

I will go with tactics.  :)

You deductive mastermind, you :)

Tactics, for sure. With the exception of the fool's mate and the likes, you can't win a game simply on the basis of your opening knowledge. You need tactics and you need to understand them in order to play even a half-decent game. Learning tactics also includes learning the endgames so you know where you are going.

Starting from the openings is a mistake. What's the point of getting an advantage in the oppening if you can't turn into a win in the middlegame? Stick with an opening like the Ruy Lopez or the Italian game in the beginning and once you're able to understand tactics and know your strenghts and your style, pick an opening that best suits them.

Tactics:21

Openings:10

Both:8

the italian game is cool...

Which one is more important?? Is it the chicken or the egg??

We must start the game by opening...if we don't understand the ideas in at least simple openings we will get ourselves into great difficulties pretty quickly...and never get to use our great tactical play.So yes the opening is very important...and we should spend some time is looking at the basics.

That being said...the game is made up of 3 sections, including the middle and end games...so we also have to allocate our time to improve on these areas as well.

In formulating an action plan to improve our play, I believe we should focuss more on where our weakness lie, and that should guide us as to where more of our time should be focussed on.

hmm

chess is 99% tactics ... something like that...

A beginner with good grasph of tactics and almost zero opening knowledge will easily beat the converse ...almost zero tactics and memorized openings.

And one with a good grasp of tactics and a little bit of understanding of a couple of openings will probably beat both. He'll at least be more likely to be in a position to attempt some sound tactical shot first.

It's not an either/or game. Both is better. Ninety-nine percent tactics? Just like cake is 99% frosting.

cake is not 99% frosting....its 99 percent cake so to use that analagy back at you... openings are like frosting just 1 percent of the whole equation.

Lets say we have players A and B. A is naturally gifted and takes to tactics very easily..Does not study ANY openings at all but has a general idea of them ... like develop pieces etc. A is very good at spotting forks, skewers, mates etc

Player B studies openings a lot has a fairly good grasp of tatics but still cannot spot good tactical plays in complicated positions.i.e understand chess quite well but cannot spot mates, forks that well.

Player A will always be better than B in regular chess.

And in chess960 A will completely crush B.

I think the point of initial post is to show that you should just concentrate on tactics, and not openings.

I have only opened a3 once and i won with it. Another time I opened with c3 and also won with it. It is hard to really beat these quirky openings esp in blitz.

I got around to reading the phonebook finally....turns out zxzyz did it. 

No but I'm seriously, I'm seriously... 

Separation of chess into tactics, openings, strategy, endgames, etc., is somewhat artificial in the first place. 

Tactics are superior simply because a solid understanding of the other "parts" of chess (openings, endgames, strategy, positional play) can't really exist without presupposing profound tactical understanding.  Sure, a player can memorize opening moves 30 moves deep or memorize a portion of the Nalimov Endgame database, but that is mere imposterism at its best. 

All of the chess greats (and everyone else) learn things in a logical order, from simplest to complex.  The simplest concepts in chess are 1-move deep...don't hang your piece, learn to mate-in-one, take your opponents' unprotected pieces, watch out for your opponents' threats to mate-in-1.  As you get better you stop hanging pieces and allowing mates-in-1's.  But then you learn to try to set up a situation where your opponent's piece essentially hangs (attacked with 2 pieces but protected only by 1, or mate-in-2).  Over time, you learnm to recognize and create 3-move tactical threats, then 4-move threats, 5-move, etc, and soon nobody is making moves that contain an obvious tactical threat...this is where stategy and positional analysis (and openings) enter the picture.  

cake is not 99% frosting....its 99 percent cake so to use that analagy back at you... openings are like frosting just 1 percent of the whole equation.

That's right, cake is not 99% frosting, which was the meaning of my satirical remark. Neither is chess 99% tactics, nor 99% openings, nor 99% anything. Much is decided with the tool of tactics, but without the other parts of chess -- proper development, timely defense, positional manouvering, fundamental strategy, etc., the tool of tactics won't get used as often as it might otherwise. This "other" part of chess is the cake, the tactics are the sweet stuff on top.

Lets say we have players A and B. A is naturally gifted and takes to tactics very easily..Does not study ANY openings at all but has a general idea of them ... like develop pieces etc. A is very good at spotting forks, skewers, mates etc

 "... but has a general idea of them ...." Isn't THAT precisely what I have been advocating all along? Your "99% tactics" player, if any actually existed, should have no idea whatsoever how to develop a piece (or even why), and should see the starting position with total confusion as there are no tactics immediately available on move 1. What you describe is someone who already knows a little bit about openings even though he might not be able to name the variation.

Player B studies openings a lot has a fairly good grasp of tatics but still cannot spot good tactical plays in complicated positions.i.e understand chess quite well but cannot spot mates, forks that well.

That is an entirely self-contradictory statement, as it is impossible to understand chess "quite well" and have "a fairly good grasp of tatics" and be incapable of spotting mates and forks, etc. well. As for a beginner doing nothing but studying openings, I have never advocated that.

Chess cannot be cut up into pieces and one piece studied to the exclusion of all others. People who think they got to be high rated players on tactics alone are fooling themselves. They learned some openings -- if not by studying opening manuals, then by getting beaten with inferior opening lines until they came up with something that worked, and/or by emulating something that worked for opponents who had studied. I'd be willing to bet that you could find many if not all of their opening lines in MCO.

They also learned something of positional play. If you learn how to set up a potential fork or potential skewer, or create a mate threat, you are playing positionally until the point where the tactic can become effective.

It's all connected. By all means, tactical study is important. I'm not arguing against it. It's part of the whole. But I think the good chess player is one who can come out of the opening at least okay, play position, tactics and defense when necessary, and if his opponent plays well, get into an endgame in good shape and have a reasonable chance in the endgame. Anywhere along the way, a good player who finds an advantage should be able to grow the advantage. An opening gain might lead to a better position which might give him tactical shots that allow him to transition into a won endgame.

To go back to overly simplistic examples: Lets take two players, A and B. Both are equally gifted; both are equally adept at tactics. Player A has a little bit of understanding of a few openings -- not deep, nor does he have multiple variations memorized -- just a few moves and the typical ideas which follow. Player B only knows he's supposed to develop, but has to wing it every time. Who do you think will have the better record?

I once had this cake that was half frosting...YUCK!!!

any more votes?