The essence of chess

Let me encourage a more zen approach:

The essence of chess is where you are (early/mid/end).

can we relate the start, middle, end with past, present and future?

like using the chess game as a microcosm compared to our macrocosm...

If I had to make that mapping, I would associate:

• the opening with the FUTURE - unknown, full of potential
  
• the middle game with the PRESENT - the part that we can actually affect and make a difference in ("No fate but what we make")
  
• the end game with the PAST - in that, after the end game, the outcome is fixed in stone - unchangeable.

Artfizz: Like you, I barely know anything about openings or opening theory.  I tend to play Nf3 as white, and Nf6 as black, with some slight variations depending on what my opponent plays.  But really, by move 3 usually, and move 4 in almost all cases, each game begins to take on its own character.  So I consider the opening, from my own perspective, to be the first one or two, and no more than four moves.  My opponent(s) may not view the same game in the same way, and so have their own particular take on it.  That's what I love about this game - the fact that even the SAME GAME may be conceived of entirely differently by the two people playing it, not to even consider how observers might look at it...

interesting, 

I see your point of view, 

but the people in the past always have the opportunity to be full of potential, and in the future, it seems like it has to do with consequences, or cleaning up the mess 

I find the late middlegame/endgame to have a strange feel, maybe is becouse I don't know much about them so they feel misterious like when you first learn to move the piecies and can't understand some of the moves of stronger players

I see your points... but I'd have to respectfully disagree.  

To me, the opening is the past, birth, a world of possibilities. You look at life in all its grandeur and decide how you're going to live yours. You make your move.

Gradually those possibilities are cut down by life's circumstances. The middle game is the present, the struggle between what you want to do and what life wants to make you do. 

The ending is either you succeeding in life, conquering it in the short time you have on your clock,  or life holds you down forever. Or, you did nothing worthwhile and no one cares.

I feel that the late middle/ending is the essence of Chess.  This is where Chess transitions from mystery to fact.  The endgame is my favourite part of Chess.  I agree with Philidor who said, "The pawns are the soul of chess."

I'm afraid that's simply a wrong definition.

In my opinion, the middlegame is where the playing skill is best manifested, and the most interesting part of the game as well. 

For me, the middle game (when it exists at all) begins with the first capture - and ends with the last capture. 

The fact that it's for YOU doesn't make it any less wrong. You can call that artfizz-game, capture-game etc. but what you're talking about is definitely not the middle-game.

I'm just trying to help you get rid of a misconception. It's your call in the end.

What's wrong with it, in your opinion?

I haven't thought about the precise definitions of all three phases, but I'm pretty confident that after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5, both players are in the opening zone.

And endgames have nothing to do with captures. You could argue about the absence of queen or general material count or king safety as defining parameters, but capturing is certainly not one of them.

The transition areas may be grey, but your parameter is not a colour, if that makes any sense.

For example, I'm not an endgame specialist by no means, but I've read many times that when you're in the endgame, you seriously need to change your mindset. If you keep playing it as you play the middlegame, it'll be easier for you to misplay it. In the opening too, there are several things that don't apply to middlegames.

Let's say you're reading chess principles. They say, "in the opening, moving the same piece twice unless there's a good reason is usually not a good idea." or for the endgame, "activate your king".

If you think you are out of the opening zone after the first capture, or still in the middlegame until the last capture, and you take chess advice seriously, there's a good chance you'll misplay it. That's why you would want to understand these concepts correctly, and not define them in whatever way you want.

I think the essential part of chess varies with each game.

I've played a number of games in which a different part was crucial in settling the score. For example, I'm currently in a game (which I believe I will win) in which the opening and middle seemed fairly simple and obvious, but the endgame seems to be slower and more intricate. But on the whole, I don't think that any part of the game is more essential than the other.

the essence of chess, for me, is all the money and chicks i get when i play well

The essence of chess is that precise moment you have the upper hand -- however small the advantage may be -- and know that with proper play you should be able to convert.  This generally occurs in the middlegame.

The endgame is where I most strongly feel the essence of chess. It is where the game resolves into exact calculation, often very imaginative and startling. No longer is the game at that point about a gross calculation of material gain or loss; it is all about specifics, where the element of time becomes more important than either force or space. The surprises I find in that dance delight me more than any others in chess.

...very interesting question "shango7"...and I like the middle game arguement...however, while this may be the most popular answer for tactical players, positional players may prefer the opening...where your troops are strategically played to take advantage of the inevitable carnage.