the mid game 4 intermediate the end game 4 masters and tactics 4 beginners
obvously all of them but i would say the opening is not the 1 u should study
obvously all of them but i would say the opening is not the 1 u should study
I would say if you have a good enough and equal skill on all; you need the midgame more.It is most efficient.
else; catch rest phases up.
else; catch rest phases up.
@Devil_fish said in #35:
> 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.
Not so look at the latest disasters by Carlsen all caused by bad openings. You are hung up on being general where as Stockfish wins by exact play only , the middle game or end game are not even real identities, the real is defense attack strategy tactics; position combination . A middle game is a fallacy in itself only mattering if the opening is short lived.you are talking hot air
> 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.
Not so look at the latest disasters by Carlsen all caused by bad openings. You are hung up on being general where as Stockfish wins by exact play only , the middle game or end game are not even real identities, the real is defense attack strategy tactics; position combination . A middle game is a fallacy in itself only mattering if the opening is short lived.you are talking hot air
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.