Originally posted by MIODudePeople are recommending tactics. I agree. That's why I recommended studying middlegame. It's all about tactics. Endgame and opening are more about memorization of specific movements and rules. That's boring. In beginning chess you don't even get to the endgame a lot of the time, and when you do someone's up two pieces or a Rook usually. Middlegame will teach opening principles because people who open better will do better in middlegame. It will provide motivation for learning openings.
so.. while you guys debate this.. lets stretch this out.
At what point is the transition from beginning, to middle to endgame?
is there a certain number of moves? or.. is it, once the pieces are developed for beginning to middle.. and once most major pieces are gone for middle to end?
I've always wondered as that might help determine what should be pr ...[text shortened]... 's the point of knowing your endgame when you are down 3 major pieces from sloppy middlegame..
I generally define middlegame roughly as being after you've developed your minor pieces and you've castled.
I define endgame roughly as being when the Queens are off the board, though if there are still complex combinations being threatened then maybe the endgame might be delayed a little while longer.
Middle game's are the bread and butter of many players fame and skill.
of course you can bypass the middle game by having a true depth of knowledge of the endgame, and steer the outcome to your favor.
This was the formula of players, like, Capablanca, and Benko.
I dont think many GM's would be top GM's if they did'nt have a very good understanding of endgames.
How could they have such a great middlegame, if they did'nt know where it was going?
Read through many game collections of past and present masters for a better idea of middlegames.
You might also notice they traded down at the opertune times to a winning endgame.
Tactics.
Kasparov has said that "Openings don't really matter at the beginning level". Tactical ability, or lack of it, decides virtually every game between class level players...The reason for this is that beginning and "class" players make so many tactical mistakes during a typical game, either by missing a three move combination or by becoming the victim of one, and the winner is usually the person who makes the next-to-last mistake...
There is no opening which wins a piece by force, so the only way to "win" a piece during the opening phase is to trap your opponent with a tactic of some kind... If you find yourself down a piece by move 10 or move 12 on a consistent basis, you need to understand that you do not have an "opening" weakness, you have a tactical weakness, and being down a piece is a result of being outplayed tactically.
In "Comprehensive Chess Course" (I don't have this, but I have a quote from it), FM Pelts and GM Alburt write: "We beg students who are addicted to opening mannuals to remember that most players who spend their time studying theory never reach A-level".
By all means, you should be aware of good opening "principles" (e.g. develop knights before bishops, control the center, castle early, etc)... but it is not necessary to "know" a bunch of openings, or even one, as long as you follow good opening principles... and there are plenty of books and web sites that talk about opening principles.
This is always an interesting topic... because most of us 'learn' chess pretty much the same way.. you learn the basic moves, but then what? No two players ever study the game the same way (assuming no professional instruction of course), because we all end up buying chess books that we like, and we pretty much follow a course of random study... It would be almost impossible for any two players to have the exact same chess book collection, provided that they have more than a couple of books... I have close to 50 books in my collection, and i'll guarantee that nobody else has the same combination of books that I do.... and the same can be said by hundreds of players just on RHP alone...
It would seem to me that the way to study would be to focus on: 1) Tactics then 2) Endgames 3) Middlegames 4) Openings
Tactics decide virtually every game at the class level...
The study of Endgames allow you to see how different combinations of pieces work together, without excessive pieces on the board to confuse things... This will help you in other phases
Middlegame study allows you to use both of the above, along with getting into some positional analysis
I personally think openings should be left for last...but make sure you understand opening principles.... if you understand opening principles, you'll end up playing many of the standard 'openings', even though you may not necessarily be able to identify them by name.
Originally posted by GrandmousterI agree with this wholeheartedly. Even though my own study is rather haphazard, if I were to tell someone how to study it would start with the endgames. Why? Because without knowledge of the endgame then you don't know what your goal is in the middle game. Without the tactics and movementn of the middlegame, you can't possibly understand the opening. Just like in golf--you learn how to putt first, because it doesn't matter how far you can drive the ball if you can't get it into the hole!
How could they have such a great middlegame, if they did'nt know where it was going?
Sounds true. I see many strong (stronger then me)Players using "odd" or "unsound " openings, and getting a good game anyway, (nakamura and Qh5 for one).
How do they get away with it? Because they understand tactics!..and positional chess!
I was playing someone just tonight, and was getting killed, i was studing lots of positional chess lately, and got into a sort of "play for squares" mentality. and had to kick my brain into a "kill-or be killed" mentality, and got a few games back. Even scoring a few points off him, (he was higher rated) after a sesion.
Seems like this player was all about tactics, and puting the pieces in the right attacking squares.
After adjusting, and avoiding the jabs and uppercuts he was trying to nail me with, i found the positional studies of late benifited me, in that i had a better feel for the positions.
Granted i was knocked around initialy, i did make use of ideas from reading Tarrasch, and other master games.
So maybe learning how to attack is the right idea for beginning and intermediate players, but dont forget to compliment it with good endgame and positional study.
Then the opening "falls into place" (so-to-speak..🙂
avoiding blunders and simple checkmates is the biggest problem in the beginning stages of chess (imo). rather than concentrate on a single aspect of the game such as endgames or openings i would concentrate on creating a decent thought process before making a move. dan heiseman national master covers this very well in his 'novice nook' articles which can be found at chesscafe.com (look in the archives). having a short checklist of things to do before moving will prevent silly tactical errors such as hanging pieces or back rank mates.