Originally posted by HolyT
I was taught long ago that one should study the endgame first, then the middle game, then the opening. It's a simplified adage, but the point is well taken: that a novice should not jump into studying openings right away.
What do you think? How long can a player study tactics alone, and what other areas should be studied first, before studying openings? ...[text shortened]... d study of openings by category, and make observations of the principles involved? Thanks.
begin by learning how the pieces move. then learn their relative point values. discover that the point values relate to the number of squares that they can move to. learn a few tactical tricks (knight forks, discovered checks, double attacks, etc). learn about castling and promotions and stalemates and when you cant do certain moves, like castle across check. learn to how to open (not openings) . . . one or two pawns, at the most, at first, then pieces before pawns, early castling, dont keep moving the same pieces over again. don't trade just to simplify, only trade when there is some advantage to doing it. after these steps, it's time to advance.
start to learn opening patterns (ones with names, and what the underlying + and - are. begin to understand pawn structures. learn more complicated tactical tricks (combinations). start to learn 2 and 3 move mates. find out about open and closed games. find out about which pieces work together better than others, like why two bishops or two knights is usually better than a bishop and a knight etc.
start to learn games. study bobby fisher, morphy, capablanca, kasparov, karpov, polgars, and all the others.
wake up on day two for the next lesson.