Chess is holistic and fatal mistakes can happen at any point. I suppose all games have openings and many games finish before an endgame is played, so you could argue that beginners should focus their attention on earlier phases, or at least on all three phases at the same time, and that might yield results for a while, but the three phases are just abstractions to help us analyze chess, and I think that to *understand* the game you have to work backwards, because a deep understanding of middlegame structures requires that you understand the resulting endgames, and a deep understanding of an opening requires that you understand the plans and pitfalls of the resulting middlegames as well as the types of endgames that follow. In that sense the endgame is the most important phase because it informs the others.
Depends on the people playing in particular and (I conjecture) on average it depends on the level.
My conjecture:
I think that up to a certain level, players tend to play well when ahead and attacking but collapse when they get behind and defend. For those levels, opening and early MG is critical as it seldom ends in a hard fought or critical EG.
Above that level, defense gets better and precision in opening and MG are a lot better. Then more is decided in the EG.
just my current thoughts after getting beat by better players, Bill
My conjecture:
I think that up to a certain level, players tend to play well when ahead and attacking but collapse when they get behind and defend. For those levels, opening and early MG is critical as it seldom ends in a hard fought or critical EG.
Above that level, defense gets better and precision in opening and MG are a lot better. Then more is decided in the EG.
just my current thoughts after getting beat by better players, Bill
"To take is a mistake" -- GM I. Smirnov
Because in many situations (like a "simple" piece exchange) you are helping the opponent develop a piece.
Because in many situations (like a "simple" piece exchange) you are helping the opponent develop a piece.
I think openings , but some openings are easier so then the middle game comes in , also some openings are like middle games , caro can and Queens gambit for the example. You get more from opening study than the other, once you understand the fundamentals of end game you need not worry about anything but time. In the puzzles section the opens are the hardest , tactics are easy which is what the middle is. So Openings are most important
@P7formula said in #34:
> I think openings , but some openings are easier so then the middle game comes in , also some openings are like middle games , caro can and Queens gambit for the example. You get more from opening study than the other, once you understand the fundamentals of end game you need not worry about anything but time. In the puzzles section the opens are the hardest , tactics are easy which is what the middle is. So Openings are most important
No, openings arent most important. Openings are overrated. It doesnt depend how the game will be, the player plays the game. Even the best chessgram (Stockfish) arent a final conclusion. Chess is abract, and the chessgame are constantly developing.
From human aspect we only see well known patterns. We human have tought that pawn is worth 1 point a knight and a bishop is worth 3 points, the rook 5, and the queen 8-10 points. We humans are like that we wondt brake any of chessprinciples when its come to exchanging down in material (Material balance), castling, developing, and so on. We human are obsess to do the theory so correctly as possible. 1.d4. 1.d5. C4..bla bla. This doesnt mean anything to noe the theory...im breaking those principles very ofte, and so do Magnus.
But if you play move by move after book its a big chance that your opponent also play move by move after book.
Example stonewall...boring. Sqeeze blod out of Stone. I like unbalanced position, i like to do my own moves and not after the book all the time. I belive in plans, my intution, my strategies, my tactics..In fact im playing my own game and not after a book with well known theory all the time. I belive in bluffing, i belive in pchycology, and i belive that chess is abstract. If chess is example soccer, that you screw it in the opening part, then it means that your'e opponent leasing 1-0 if you can say that in that way. So the game arent over automatically because just like in soccer it can be some counterplay.
In purpose i have played bad in the opening, to take my opponent out of these patterns and lines...Even saqed 3 pawns og front of the king with Duras Gambit. Boom finished..I wasnt my finished but my opponent got mated
Why is not mated? Exactly because of clinical middlegame.
To become GM it doesnt work like this, that you must learn much more about openings...openings almost mean nada, Unless there is a huuuge disadvantage and none counterplay.
But when its comes to all openingsknowledge are a bit overrated. There is even a need to try to memorice in the openings...So the openingsstuff are very overrated.
> I think openings , but some openings are easier so then the middle game comes in , also some openings are like middle games , caro can and Queens gambit for the example. You get more from opening study than the other, once you understand the fundamentals of end game you need not worry about anything but time. In the puzzles section the opens are the hardest , tactics are easy which is what the middle is. So Openings are most important
No, openings arent most important. Openings are overrated. It doesnt depend how the game will be, the player plays the game. Even the best chessgram (Stockfish) arent a final conclusion. Chess is abract, and the chessgame are constantly developing.
From human aspect we only see well known patterns. We human have tought that pawn is worth 1 point a knight and a bishop is worth 3 points, the rook 5, and the queen 8-10 points. We humans are like that we wondt brake any of chessprinciples when its come to exchanging down in material (Material balance), castling, developing, and so on. We human are obsess to do the theory so correctly as possible. 1.d4. 1.d5. C4..bla bla. This doesnt mean anything to noe the theory...im breaking those principles very ofte, and so do Magnus.
But if you play move by move after book its a big chance that your opponent also play move by move after book.
Example stonewall...boring. Sqeeze blod out of Stone. I like unbalanced position, i like to do my own moves and not after the book all the time. I belive in plans, my intution, my strategies, my tactics..In fact im playing my own game and not after a book with well known theory all the time. I belive in bluffing, i belive in pchycology, and i belive that chess is abstract. If chess is example soccer, that you screw it in the opening part, then it means that your'e opponent leasing 1-0 if you can say that in that way. So the game arent over automatically because just like in soccer it can be some counterplay.
In purpose i have played bad in the opening, to take my opponent out of these patterns and lines...Even saqed 3 pawns og front of the king with Duras Gambit. Boom finished..I wasnt my finished but my opponent got mated
Why is not mated? Exactly because of clinical middlegame.
To become GM it doesnt work like this, that you must learn much more about openings...openings almost mean nada, Unless there is a huuuge disadvantage and none counterplay.
But when its comes to all openingsknowledge are a bit overrated. There is even a need to try to memorice in the openings...So the openingsstuff are very overrated.
There are several phrases I consider important in chess. Former world champion Garry Kasparov was once asked what he considered the most important thing in chess. He replied: "Activity of pieces is the most important thing".
@EmaciatedSpaniard said in #33:
> "To take is a mistake" -- GM I. Smirnov
> Because in many situations (like a "simple" piece exchange) you are helping the opponent develop a piece.
That's one of my favorite phrases uttered by Igor Smirnov.
> "To take is a mistake" -- GM I. Smirnov
> Because in many situations (like a "simple" piece exchange) you are helping the opponent develop a piece.
That's one of my favorite phrases uttered by Igor Smirnov.
@Frogster64 said in #17:
> worst phrase: "and the rest is a matter of technique"
I remember that phrase in several chess books. What? Just like that? were questions that appeared in my mind.
> worst phrase: "and the rest is a matter of technique"
I remember that phrase in several chess books. What? Just like that? were questions that appeared in my mind.
All are important
Brief overview of a phase.
Chess is much more than 3 phases. The phases is similar to the word Apartment. An apartment may have a living room, a bedroom, a kitchen .... Each one has a purpose and a need. Which is more important at night? Which is more important in the morning? Lucky you you get to pick by time of day, but chess phases are sequential.
Chess phases have similar needs, but they are locked sequentially. The opening is the first thing, the middle game is second and the endgame last. If something is first, than it's important that it gets dealt with first.
Chess should never have been divided into phases. Chess is in a way reset every time there is an exchange. Chess phases should be the transitions from one exchange to another. Phasing in, phasing out. Each time you capture, it's like a new setup. Each exchange either unbalances or balances the game. It behaves like a swing that goes back and forth from one side to the other. Chess phase equilibrium is when the game is equalized with an exchange that offsets the imbalance. One move flows with the response.
The phases is more like: Going to work, Working, Going home. Which is more important? Going to work, working, or going home. If you want to work, than you have to go to work, and remain at work and leave when it's over.
Comparing helps to think out of the box, for better answers and to help understand why things are, the way they are.
Pulling one phrase out of context is miss leading. Phases have a series of moves that lead to a process called exchanges. Without exchanges the game would be just be shuffling pieces around the chessboard. The phases are like water. At one moment it is frozen, then it is liquid and then in gas form. The phase transition is when it's neither frozen or liquid or liquid and in gas form. So in a way there are 5 moment s in time that chess can be found it. So this is why a phase is not a fixed move number. A phase can only change from opening to middle game by an exchange. The middle game ends when their is an exchange that enters the end game. All three phases are transferred by an exchange. The exchanges is what is important.
If you can mate in 4, than you have reached the end game with only one exchange and never had to face the middle game.
So the middle game can be bypassed, but the opening and endgame cannot. Maybe engines do not know how to bypass a middle game.
Adjust and improve current and future phases of the game according to exchanges and engine feedbacks. Think about the phase transition dynamics that goes beyond the equalizing chess principles.
Chess is much more than 3 phases. The phases is similar to the word Apartment. An apartment may have a living room, a bedroom, a kitchen .... Each one has a purpose and a need. Which is more important at night? Which is more important in the morning? Lucky you you get to pick by time of day, but chess phases are sequential.
Chess phases have similar needs, but they are locked sequentially. The opening is the first thing, the middle game is second and the endgame last. If something is first, than it's important that it gets dealt with first.
Chess should never have been divided into phases. Chess is in a way reset every time there is an exchange. Chess phases should be the transitions from one exchange to another. Phasing in, phasing out. Each time you capture, it's like a new setup. Each exchange either unbalances or balances the game. It behaves like a swing that goes back and forth from one side to the other. Chess phase equilibrium is when the game is equalized with an exchange that offsets the imbalance. One move flows with the response.
The phases is more like: Going to work, Working, Going home. Which is more important? Going to work, working, or going home. If you want to work, than you have to go to work, and remain at work and leave when it's over.
Comparing helps to think out of the box, for better answers and to help understand why things are, the way they are.
Pulling one phrase out of context is miss leading. Phases have a series of moves that lead to a process called exchanges. Without exchanges the game would be just be shuffling pieces around the chessboard. The phases are like water. At one moment it is frozen, then it is liquid and then in gas form. The phase transition is when it's neither frozen or liquid or liquid and in gas form. So in a way there are 5 moment s in time that chess can be found it. So this is why a phase is not a fixed move number. A phase can only change from opening to middle game by an exchange. The middle game ends when their is an exchange that enters the end game. All three phases are transferred by an exchange. The exchanges is what is important.
If you can mate in 4, than you have reached the end game with only one exchange and never had to face the middle game.
So the middle game can be bypassed, but the opening and endgame cannot. Maybe engines do not know how to bypass a middle game.
Adjust and improve current and future phases of the game according to exchanges and engine feedbacks. Think about the phase transition dynamics that goes beyond the equalizing chess principles.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.