good post, but the OP is around 1700 rating 😂
But everyone reading this is not. It's also not clear from the OP whether they are asking in general or for themselves, and if asking for themselves, whether they are asking how to improve from their current rating or trying to decide if they took the best route to improving in the past.
True
Probably middlegame
Ok. So i am rated at the time of writing 2027 in blitz, 1886 in rapid and 1550+ in bullet.
I don't know much about opening theory. In fact if one goes to check out my games as black against the ruy lopez after my move 6 I think Stockfish evaluates the position as almost 0.8 . I also know of almost none opening traps. Again at the endgame I am totally lost. I have heard the names lucena and philidor but I don't exactly know what they are. I am clear about opposition in simple King pawn vs K games but if they get complex I get confused.
So where does my rating come from? I think it all comes from positional and tactics. I think at my level, I have a better understanding of positional chess. The strategies.
Another thing. I was around 1300-1350 for a long time in bullet. I got so frustrated I left playing it for a long time. However suddenly I improved. Again this happened as I have started doing more and more of puzzle rush. Over the past one month I have gained approximately 200 points in bullet. And further from here too my main focus is tactics. I think that on chess. Com bullet and blitz a rating of about 2300 can be achieved by focusing on tactics ans strategies in middlegame. So till that level I suppose it's middlegame and tactics that is most important.
[removed]
I got so frustrated I left playing it for a long time. However suddenly I improved.
[removed]
Yeah, after taking a 2 year break chess seemed to come together for me. I made this account and actually made progress instead of sitting at 800 for 3 years for once.
Isnt flagging also an element?
Each part of the game has its importance. You can find opening, endgame and many other important courses in one place and improve your skills. https://chessmood.com/courses
All three phases Opening/Middlegame/Endgame are important and critical.
If you don't understand the endgame, you'll be directionless in the middle-game. If you don't understand the middle-game, your openings will just be a series of random developing moves.
Chess should be learned:
Endgames first => then middle-games => openings last.
A coach explained it this way.
Endings are the foundation of a home. Without a solid foundation the rest of the house will not stand.
Middle game: The walls. If the foundation is not solid the support beams will not be solid.
Openings: The roof. Try putting a roof on a substandard house and see how long it lasts.
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/53566786055
Take a look of my fav playing with sacrifise in this opening.
Each opening has two directions:
1. Make it quick with develop - watching to have defense on pieces
2. Dont castle always too early!
Is the catalan somehow good against that?
I'm not trying to be coy, I'm just saying.
I was making fun about how "nobody plays the catalan"
fun fact, Hikaru actually said that on stream; he said, "The catalan? who plays the catalan?" lol
Maybe at the super GM level it's drawish?
Or maybe it's seen as bad for blitz at the top blitz levels?
Because otherwise the Catalan is a great opening
Honestly how many Catalans have you seen in your games? For me it's zero, I think. I haven't checked.
I'm a 1.e4 player, but I've dabbled with 1.Nf3 and the catalan even in tournament games.
As black I've played against the Catalan a few times... Kramnik made a living out of playing it, so it's obviously a good opening. Maybe the latest trends are not in favor of it... but lets just say in a match of Naka vs Kramnik I'd bet on Kramnik
Well, these comments didn't age well.
If you don't understand the endgame, you'll be directionless in the middle-game. If you don't understand the middle-game, your openings will just be a series of random developing moves.
Chess should be learned:
Endgames first => then middle-games => openings last.
This idea is hardly original. It was the view of Capablanca. It was endorsed by other World Champions. It informed the Soviet School, which dominated global chess from the end of WWII to the beginning of American adventures in Afghanistan.
I heartily agree.
This idea is hardly original. It was the view of Capablanca. It was endorsed by other World Champions. It informed the Soviet School, which dominated global chess from the end of WWII to the beginning of American adventures in Afghanistan.
I heartily agree.
The problem is no new player ever wants to learn endgames first, so here's how I do it:
Short term:
Teach the rules.
Play some games, talk about some principles, toss in an occasional challenge (can you stop all four of these pawns with a knight?), rinse and repeat.
Name openings as they are played, don't say much else.
Talk about pawn races when they lose to one.
Show basic queen and rook mates.
Mid term:
Teach them an opening that matches their natural leanings, and one that does not.
Teach basic endgames, pawn breaks, etc.
Show the strength of development, and control of the center.
Show how to research openings and endgames and find instructional material
Long term:
You're on your own, I am not a chess coach 
.
This idea is hardly original. It was the view of Capablanca. It was endorsed by other World Champions. It informed the Soviet School, which dominated global chess from the end of WWII to the beginning of American adventures in Afghanistan.
I heartily agree.
The problem is no new player ever wants to learn endgames first, so here's how I do it:
Short term:
Teach the rules.
Play some games, talk about some principles, toss in an occasional challenge (can you stop all four of these pawns with a knight?), rinse and repeat.
Name openings as they are played, don't say much else.
Talk about pawn races when they lose to one.
Show basic queen and rook mates.
This is basically how I have been teaching my brother. He's not into chess like I am, which is understandable because chess is a terrible game that makes me feel bad, but he gets by.
Without motivation, you can't really improve, and the "idea" way to learn chess is a moot point because, well, the student doesn't want to play chess anymore.
So I just showed him some openings to the point where he gets basic ideas in the ones he plays, somewhere around 3-5 moves into the game.
I tell him that in the endgame, you should always push your passed pawns (he knows basic checkmates).
And anything more specific, I tell him if he encounters it in a game.
It's a slow learning process, but at least he's still playing.
The fundamentals of chess.
I dont remember who said it:
"A mistake in the opening you can recover from. A mistake in the middlegame will hurt you. A mistake in the endgame will kill you."
good post, but the OP is around 1700 rating 😂
But everyone reading this is not. It's also not clear from the OP whether they are asking in general or for themselves, and if asking for themselves, whether they are asking how to improve from their current rating or trying to decide if they took the best route to improving in the past.
Also, I'm being intentionally conservative to avoid people arguing
...but the stuff I have been posting about is valuable past 1500 and even possibly past 1800. For example, there are plenty of blitz-first players around that have reached high ratings purely through tactics training and specializing in a very narrow set of openings.