18 ( +1 | -1 ) How important are each phase of the game worth?I think it is 40-30-30(opening-middle-endgame).The opening is a little more important 'cause if you do too bad then the game just ends righ there.Anybody has different opinions?
18 ( +1 | -1 ) Each phase...I would put it more like 33-33-34... Each phase of the game is just about equal to each other with the exception of the endgame where one has to play like a machine...
163 ( +1 | -1 ) Below is what soshin explained about this matter in another thread:
"My Outline Of study.
There are three phases to a chess game and it would be foolish to not understand each phase in balance to the other two.
A player needs an understanding of "opening" basics to fully appreciate the "middlegame" and likewise needs an understanding of "middlegame" to fully appreciate the "endgame".
The sequence of these phases logically leads to basic study of them in the same order.(beginning to end)
In my mind, players that follow this outline will reach an intermediate level at a faster pace than those that do not.
At the intermediate level I believe it is important to identify strenghts and weakness in relation to these three phases and study each accordingly.
At the advanced level I believe it is important to return to the "beginners" outline and broaden the players knowledge of each phase in a balanced manner.
Having said all of this, I agree that many players devote an "unbalanced" amount of time with their "opening" studies....(memorizing opening variations and following "opening books" or using databases (opening and endgame) is not playing chess.
A balanced player will win more games, at ALL levels, than a "specialist" or unbalanced player will."
Personally I think that above was the best explanation of the importance of these 3 phases of chess games. In other words, you cannot simply put a x-y-z to compare their importance. They will have different values for different skill level.
119 ( +1 | -1 ) I'm relatively new on GK but could share my experience... When I entered GK, main amount of games were "solved" in middle-game and end-game appeared as only realisation of advance and so... Am issue of couple games were clear in opening phase. Now, mainly all my games have achieved endgame state and a long games are waiting looking for slight advantages (or disadvantages)... . Why a difference like that happened? When I joined GK I played (by unexperience) many weaker players (<1700). Now mainly all opponents are from middle range (1700-2100). So blunders in opening phase are more often for weaker players - and no surprise if they rush to learn an opening theory (because the knowing it gives an advantage against players in their level and better chances to fight with opponents with higher rate). When they start do more games with more advanced players, More games fall-in endgame phase, when very subtle sense of position is needed. So they start to leand endgames. . Later 'the wheel' starts to run from beginining (opening-middlegame-endgame-opening-m-e-o....)
102 ( +1 | -1 ) Loreta"So blunders in opening phase are more often for weaker players - and no surprise if they rush to learn an opening theory (because the knowing it gives an advantage against players in their level and better chances to fight with opponents with higher rate)."
But almost 100% of blunders in the opening are a result of bad tactical skills or sloppy play. If one blunders in the opening, studying openings wont help because that only leads to blundering in the middlegame...
I am not going to guess the relative importance of opening-middlegame-endgame because it depends on skill level etc (as pointed out by indiana-jay). For example in <1300 range it might be 15-70-15 (or not) and on 2600+ range it might be 33-34-33 (or not)...
When the games arent (almost) always decided by tactical or positional blunders, endgame skills become more important.
When one becomes super GM, openings become more important :-)
(Half-joking here, more about openings in thread "Are chess players opening-obsessed nowadays?")
88 ( +1 | -1 ) I've to agree, peppe_lYour rate is higher :-) Slight misunderstanging - but It's not so important to go into subtle meanings - mauybe. my english wasn't perfect. I wanted to share only my feeling - a) weakening (move, pawns structure, plan and so and so) in opening leads to problems in middle and end-game; b) when playing with stronger opponent, weaker player (often) gets troubles already in opening - so he thinks - study an opening theory will help him. And that does but no so much as he expected. . What is wrong with that - it's overvalued the opening as sets of lines - not as understanding of ideas what is hidden in these lines... . So after playing good variation in opening, a player fall down into bad position in middlegame (or to bad endgame). Of course, it's better to be 'balanced' (good in same level in all phases of gamer), but better to best 'the best' in all that even!
42 ( +1 | -1 ) AddendumIf the question is how much time should be spent preparing/studying each phase of the game I would say it is more 25/50/25. The middlegame, at least to me is the most difficult period. I see it all the time in OTB play, as well as here, a player plays a book opening, then their opponent throws a curve ath them, and BOOM, they blunder.
To me, the mosdt difficult time are the moves right after the book is done.
91 ( +1 | -1 ) CoyotefanThe point is if you excel in middlegame (both tactics and strategy) you can play the opening reasonably well even if you havent spent so much time for studying openings.
"I see it all the time in OTB play, as well as here, a player plays a book opening, then their opponent throws a curve at them, and BOOM, they blunder."
Exactly. Because they have spent too much time for studying openings. A player who has studied strategy and tactics will not blunder (at least not so often!), he will find reasonable moves even after his theoretical knowledge ends.
"To me, the most difficult time are the moves right after the book is done."
And why...? :-)
BTW, correction to my previous post:
"Also I know clearly stronger players than me who have very unbalanced chess skills are rather ridiculous opinions considering the importance of opening-middlegame-endgame."
are = and
18 ( +1 | -1 ) How do masters study the opening.masters study the opening by playing throughalot of complete game scores. They are really studying opening,middlegames, and endings when they study the opening.