The most important phase of a game is the phase where one side gains the decisive advantage. It can be any of the three and you never know in advance.
The most important phase to focus on in training is the phase you have most problems with.
The most important phase to focus on in training is the phase you have most problems with.
"... Every now and then someone advances the idea that one may gain success in chess by using shortcuts. 'Chess is 99% tactics' - proclaims one expert, suggesting that strategic understanding is overrated; 'Improvement in chess is all about opening knowledge' - declares another. A third self-appointed authority asserts that a thorough knowledge of endings is the key to becoming a master; while his expert-friend is puzzled by the mere thought that a player can achieve anything at all without championing pawn structures.
To me, such statements seem futile. You can't hope to gain mastery of any subject by specializing in only parts of it. ..." - FM Amatzia Avni (2008)
To me, such statements seem futile. You can't hope to gain mastery of any subject by specializing in only parts of it. ..." - FM Amatzia Avni (2008)
Okay, I'm gonna pick "with a decisive attack." Either that or maybe "winning easily."
The most important phrase in annotating though is probably "more circumspect is..."
The most important phrase in annotating though is probably "more circumspect is..."
Endgame
@h2b2 said in #5:
> checkmate is the most important phrase
I agree. Learning how to checkmate in all phases of the game is far better than focusing on a specific phase. This is particularly true if you have missed many checkmates in your past games. Generally, by understanding checkmate patterns, you can work backwards to learn how to better position your pieces.
> checkmate is the most important phrase
I agree. Learning how to checkmate in all phases of the game is far better than focusing on a specific phase. This is particularly true if you have missed many checkmates in your past games. Generally, by understanding checkmate patterns, you can work backwards to learn how to better position your pieces.
worst phrase: "and the rest is a matter of technique"
In mine opinion openings are a bit overrated phase. Well example you can be outplayed in the opening (even go out of theory if you know that your'e opponent are specialist in that spesific opening, to example saq a pawn to get counterplay in a way). Openings are much about well known patterns and tricks. But when it comes to middlegame then the real strenght comes into the picture - with positional play, strategies, tactics, plan(s), and so on. And a good or bad endgame depends on the middlegame, not automatically because of the opening.
You can outplay with your'e opponent with example hippotameous or Amar. Not good opening, but if your'e opponent cant punish you with constantly clinical moves and are about average truough all these phases then you can win. Simple as that. It depends in general about the accuracy truough the game, not to be a expert in one of this phases. But if i can chose one of these phases who are most important as an statepoint then i would choose middlegame.
Example of a scenario in a game - your'e opponent or you invites to a queentrade (most of part it happens in the middlegame) that will be the keypart for the result of the game, because that queentrade can hypotetically be good/bad for you because of tactical, positionally, or strategical. If you can't calculate this situation properly and choose the best choice for you, then it's useless for how good you know about openingstheory. Openingstheory/openingschoices are as a statepoint decided in the opening part. The opening part are just a shape of the game. It doesnt matter what you play in the opening as long im not screwed with traps or something.
Example if your'e opponent plays Stafford gambit....there is almost only danger for white if you castle kingside or dondt play the right pawn move. But even you consolide well as white in the opening against Stafford you can still lose the game because there is so much counterplay for both sides. Black are immedetely down balance in the gambit, about 2,5.
You can be good in openings...But if you plays example Eric Rosén, and the traps doesnt work against you, he will anyway take youre down in one of the other phases, just because they are more important phases. You will lose pieces anway until you get checkmated. Because of universal understandment for chess.
I just played Fins now, since he played wievers. He went for Scandi. Just like I played Rosén, when he went for Stafford gambit against me...whatever i would do i would lose anyway. I tried to avoid the Main lines. Against Fins i overlooked that he had tactic so he won a pawn. But if i played the mainline with taken the centrumpawn back with queen, im down already with 0,7 balance because it is tempiloss..so i have 3 good squares for the queen...And when i have chosen of one those squares what then? He have studied all of those lines deeply. But he is a IM, so it says it self. Whatever i choose to play he chase me down...But to eventually beat those strong players you just can't play theyre favorite lines, simple as that.
You must try to take them out of theory, and try to attack. Attack in general is the best defence...You cant just defend to draw or victory from start...to have a plan and come up with strong moves in general are alfa omega in chess. So can openings be openings.
You can outplay with your'e opponent with example hippotameous or Amar. Not good opening, but if your'e opponent cant punish you with constantly clinical moves and are about average truough all these phases then you can win. Simple as that. It depends in general about the accuracy truough the game, not to be a expert in one of this phases. But if i can chose one of these phases who are most important as an statepoint then i would choose middlegame.
Example of a scenario in a game - your'e opponent or you invites to a queentrade (most of part it happens in the middlegame) that will be the keypart for the result of the game, because that queentrade can hypotetically be good/bad for you because of tactical, positionally, or strategical. If you can't calculate this situation properly and choose the best choice for you, then it's useless for how good you know about openingstheory. Openingstheory/openingschoices are as a statepoint decided in the opening part. The opening part are just a shape of the game. It doesnt matter what you play in the opening as long im not screwed with traps or something.
Example if your'e opponent plays Stafford gambit....there is almost only danger for white if you castle kingside or dondt play the right pawn move. But even you consolide well as white in the opening against Stafford you can still lose the game because there is so much counterplay for both sides. Black are immedetely down balance in the gambit, about 2,5.
You can be good in openings...But if you plays example Eric Rosén, and the traps doesnt work against you, he will anyway take youre down in one of the other phases, just because they are more important phases. You will lose pieces anway until you get checkmated. Because of universal understandment for chess.
I just played Fins now, since he played wievers. He went for Scandi. Just like I played Rosén, when he went for Stafford gambit against me...whatever i would do i would lose anyway. I tried to avoid the Main lines. Against Fins i overlooked that he had tactic so he won a pawn. But if i played the mainline with taken the centrumpawn back with queen, im down already with 0,7 balance because it is tempiloss..so i have 3 good squares for the queen...And when i have chosen of one those squares what then? He have studied all of those lines deeply. But he is a IM, so it says it self. Whatever i choose to play he chase me down...But to eventually beat those strong players you just can't play theyre favorite lines, simple as that.
You must try to take them out of theory, and try to attack. Attack in general is the best defence...You cant just defend to draw or victory from start...to have a plan and come up with strong moves in general are alfa omega in chess. So can openings be openings.
Best (para-)phrase: whoever makes the second to last blunder wins (Tartakower)
The last blunder can be in the opening, the middle game or the endgame. All equally important.
The last blunder can be in the opening, the middle game or the endgame. All equally important.
@Trigonometricmaths said in #11:
> @derkleineJo what he meant could be phase and not phrase.
I meant phase
> @derkleineJo what he meant could be phase and not phrase.
I meant phase
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.