There are a lot of openings that one usually needs to concentrate on just a few to learn if one is going to have a life to speak of.
Tactics are useful all during the whole game. Positional chess is applied also throughout each game. Pawn Structures are a must learn.
Perhaps elements (or principles if you prefer) should be identified.
Time, not just tempo, has already been mentioned indirectly as seperate stages of a game. I consider any important element to be associated with time. After all, time is everything.
Some may consider theory as involving more than the 3 general stages. How many theorists agree exactly when the 3 stages begin and end?
Some "subjects" to consider:
Tangent Above (Stage of the Game):
Opening/Middlegame/Endgame
The Cyclic Elements of the game:
Tempi- The first move of the game (and each afterwards) uses precious time.
Position-The starting position is changed after the 1st and each subsequent move.
Center Control-
Development- Placement
Space- Allows mobility
Mobility-Allows co-ordination between pieces to join force in threats and maneuvers
Force- Material as a combined unit
Advance-Attacking the opponent's king or other pieces
Tangent Below (Playing the Game):
Evaluation (comparing)- Cyclic elements for the current position
Calculation (visualizing)- Checks, captures, threats, tactical motifs for a future position
Planning-Course of action to take based on findings from evaluation and calculation.
Of course, I'm not a qualified theorist. Pick a method and see what happens.
There are a lot of elements brought up here. I will answer in details later, but thank you for participation.
PawnstormPossie
Time is of practical value, but not of theory one.
If you could explain your meaning of (Tangent Above) or(Tangent Below) , please.
Elaborate more on Force- Material as a combined unit, please.
You speak of practical experience and that is good since theory must be applied otherwise stays theory only.
Planing generaly could be broken in small steps. So we are talking about multiple plans which will fit in that general plan.
You need to define theory for context.
The "tangents" above and below would lines of abstract elements (just as in geometry) which touch the circle of concrete elements.
Notice the cycle of concrete elements:
Tempi ->Position ->Center Control -> Development ->Space ->Mobility ->Force ->Advance ->Tempi again
We can define in more detail or redefine these later.
You are approaching the problem from practical point of view, since you play lot more than me.
Good starting point for explanations but needs more explaining. (1)The two tangent lines refer to chess abstract elements, if I am not mistaken. But what elements or points are they referring to? (2) what is/are difference(s) between tangent above and tangent below?
1) Tangent Above: Stages of the game. Abstract periods of time
Opening/MG/EG as points on the line.
Tangent Below: Thinking (Abstract process which takes time)
Eval/Cal/Plan as points on a line
2) Difference is self explanatory...Perhaps the line above could be considered more concrete and having more impact on the circle and line below. Example...planning doesn't determine stage of the game so much as the stage of the game might heavily influence your planning.
OK. So these are terms you use for your own understanding of things. I assumed these terms might refer to concepts I have somehow missed during my study of chess. But it is still good point to think about and possibly relate them to actual concepts that (1)
1) Tangent Above: Stages of the game. Abstract periods of time
Opening/MG/EG as points on the line.
Tangent Below: Thinking (Abstract process which takes time)
Eval/Cal/Plan as points on a line
2) Difference is self explanatory...Perhaps the line above could be considered more concrete and having more impact on the circle and line below. Example...planning doesn't determine stage of the game so much as the stage of the game might heavily influence your planning.
OK. So these are terms you use for your own understanding of things. I assumed these terms might refer to concepts I have somehow missed during my study of chess. But it is still good point to think about and possibly relate them to actual concepts that (1) might have been identified by others or (2) you are actually naming concepts that no one has before named them.
Chess Theory is a young topic and could be open to discoveries. There are tactics that I have seen many times before but an author found a name for it, Choking Tactic might be the name.
Give it a good thinking, you might be onto something.
there is nothing theoretical about a chess game any more than checkers, poker or scrabble. chess players just want to seem sophisticated about playing a game so they toss around words like "theory" such pretense.
There are 200 years of experience that has accumulated to contribute to Chess Theory. And it is containing a lot of work done by people who have spent a lot of time over it. Pawn Structures are the back bone of chess. I could go on but you are familiar with opening, middle, and end games.
Maybe over complicated for what you actually wanted.
Let's start with endgames.
What subjects to inckude?
Not sure why you need more subjects.
Find a recently published book. One that has encorporated the use of tablebases.
No. Exchanging ideas take time and effort. That's all.
I am trying to accumulate information that adds up for studying chess. For example, end games include a lot of basic elements that I am sure you are familiar with a lot of them. This effort could lead to a collection of such games that could be made available to others too. This collection might already exist in other people's work(s).
I do not know anything about (tablebases) or where to find them. Same goes for creating interactive chess boards that show part or all of a game or analysis of the same.
For openings I focus on development that threatens your opponent (pure defense, especially as Black, doesn't work) and leads to a middlegame where you can make a plan.
For the middlegame I focus on tactics first, strategy second.
For the endgame, I review various books so I don't forget various techniques like Square of the King, The Opposition, the Lucena and Philador Rook Endings, etc.
Overall, I spend time reminding myself how to be efficient and complete in my pre-move thinking.
Chess Theory is a young topic and could be open to discoveries. There are tactics that I have seen many times before but an author found a name for it, Choking Tactic might be the name.
Give it a good thinking, you might be onto something.
I don't believe anything I've said is unique. Not sure if I've given any concepts.
The concept of cyclical elements, I'm sure is nothing new. Maybe not important, just one way of perceiving how the elements have a relationship with each other and how these relationships change over the stages of game.
Tactics- (Motifs) are very important. They're also rather easy to study, learn, apply. Some say chess is 99% tactics, but chess os much more (IMO). It's possible to achieve GM with very strong tactical skills and not have exceptional positional evaluation skills. Mauricio Rios Flores openly admitted this in an interview on the Perpetual Chess Podcast.
Tangent lines are terms you used to describe an ever changing position, now I understand you better, or so I think. Good analogy. As I said it takes time and effort to come to a common understanding.
For openings I focus on development that threatens your opponent (pure defense, especially as Black, doesn't work) and leads to a middlegame where you can make a plan.
For the middlegame I focus on tactics first, strategy second.
For the endgame, I review various books so I don't forget various techniques like Square of the King, The Opposition, the Lucena and Philador Rook Endings, etc.
Overall, I spend time reminding myself how to be efficient and complete in my pre-move thinking.
Hi Mick, good to hear from you too as it is with PawnstormPossie.
I would have liked to hear you mention pawn structure, or expected so. Why not?
You misunderstood
Much like the image here:
I am not sure what I misunderstood. There is no image anyway.
Yeah, that came out skewed
PawnstormPossie:
You have not explained what I misunderstood.
To Everyone:
I would have liked to hear some points that I might have missed during my study of Chess Theory. For example, positional chess and pawn structure chess two major approach to Chess Theory.
Also there are books about Art of Attack, Art of Chess Analysis, ....etc.
Recently I have heard a lot about a book by Jeremy Silman the title of which I forgot.
More of these sort of approach to Chess Theory are there that I was hopeful to hear about.
If you know about other new approach to Chess Theory please list some reference book for it here.
Learning about chess theory involves opening, middle, and endgames. Each of these three could be broken down into a variety subjects. How would you identify what subject(s) to include for any/all parts of chess theory?
You've been here since 2010 and haven't played a single game here. The first thing I would do is to start playing some games and gaining experience in chess.
Yeah, that came out skewed
PawnstormPossie:
You have not explained what I misunderstood.
To Everyone:
I would have liked to hear some points that I might have missed during my study of Chess Theory. For example, positional chess and pawn structure chess two major approach to Chess Theory.
Also there are books about Art of Attack, Art of Chess Analysis, ....etc.
Recently I have heard a lot about a book by Jeremy Silman the title of which I forgot.
More of these sort of approach to Chess Theory are there that I was hopeful to hear about.
If you know about other new approach to Chess Theory please list some reference book for it here.
I guess it's not important what you misunderstood.
We don't know what you've studied. We can't know what you've missed.
A basic approach to understanding many things (not only chess) is to reverse engineer the subject. The Russians applied this method to chess.
Starting with endgames makes things less complicated. There are few pieces on the board. Tactics are easier to "see".
Once familiar with the simplest and most common endgames and tactics, one usually moves toward middle game study. Here, positional play is important. How to get to a favorable endgame or not get to an unfavorable endgame is a common focus. How to build upon advantages/imbalances (however small), exploit weaknesses is a recurring question to be answered.
Silman has a number of books, they're easy to find.
Wikipedia has information on book subjects you're asking about related to chess theory.
Are you asking for overall chess study plan reccomendations for a beginner?
What I said before gives a general sense about what I have studied.
To pick a good point you made, it is good to have resources including a lot of endgames, simple or not. So name a few of resources if you haven't already.
Tactics I am familiar with.
Imbalances was subject of a book by J. Silman.
My knowledge is beyond beginners, even though my play is not. I have studied many books for kids long time ago.
Learning about chess theory involves opening, middle, and endgames. Each of these three could be broken down into a variety subjects. How would you identify what subject(s) to include for any/all parts of chess theory?
You've been here since 2010 and haven't played a single game here. The first thing I would do is to start playing some games and gaining experience in chess.
Though I started about 2010, I only read some books every so often and not even that.
Thank you for noticing that, but my interest is learning about chess, not playing. At least, not now.
Chess serve me for concentration and general life applications which I will not discuss in this forum.
You misunderstood
Much like the image here:
IQ bigger than deal alert
Jerk alert
Please avoid these negative interactions. I appreciate it very much if both of you contribute positively to the discussion about the topic. I am sure both of you can recommend some good things from practical or even theoretical point of view.
Learning about chess theory involves opening, middle, and endgames. Each of these three could be broken down into a variety subjects. How would you identify what subject(s) to include for any/all parts of chess theory?
You've been here since 2010 and haven't played a single game here. The first thing I would do is to start playing some games and gaining experience in chess.
...
... my interest is learning about chess, not playing. At least, not now.
Chess serve me for concentration and general life applications which I will not discuss in this forum.
Theory in chess is tied to practice. There's absolutely no sense discussing chess theory without practicing it. And yes, that's kinda like life, too.
Learning about chess theory involves opening, middle, and endgames. Each of these three could be broken down into a variety subjects. How would you identify what subject(s) to include for any/all parts of chess theory?