Originally posted by Grandmouster
...my point, and ill keep repeating it, is learn good chess first, before getting into tactics. You might even get a feel for tacics, by playing, and from lots of master games....
you can't run if you don't know how to walk first. and the first thing about chess for a beginner, is learning to
see the board. I think many people make the mistake of thinking that learning tactics is about being able to do deep combinations. it's not. that's
how you learn, not
why you learn. the
why you learn is to be able to
see all the pieces, their potential moves and interrelations, completely, accurately
and fast.
you can learn it by doing lot's of problems, playing a lot of games or analysing a lot of games. only the thing is, a set of tactical problems is a concentrated way to train your vision, because every position
has tactics. more bang for the buck. (the downside being you don't get the connection of how you end up in such situations.) -in games, you have maybe one or two situations a game where you even need to use your 'tactical visualisation'. but because those situations make or break the game (for a beginner), no amount of positional excellence will do you much good there.
blitz is mainly about tactics, there isn't time for anything else. the time for stategic thinking in blitz is
created by being fast and accurate in tactics. in CC however, it's completely the opposite. tactically weaker players are able to compensate their tactical shortcomings by using more time.
about the endgame. it's a lot of theory. it'll take a lot of time to study and practice. but before you get into any kind of decent level in tactics, you'll almost never reach endgames. you crush, or get crushed. although everything you learn is always good for you, my opinion is, the time is better spent in tactics
until you start reaching endgames without having dropped pieces.
about taking tips from lower rated players, it
is possible a 1300-player is very good at endgame theory, but is held back because he drops pieces. and a 1700 might not even have touched endgame theory. it's clear the latter should listen what the former says. the same goes for any area of theory. but how could you know the 1300 really was better? beats me. maybe if he can prove his point?