early game is basically solved and tedious to learn first so don't worry about it yet. Maybe learn like the first 5 moves in a handful of popular openings if you're paralysed by indecision.
Midgame is too complex to understand for a beginner. Instead learn the broad fundamental principles and try to develop a sense for judging which positions are better. Stuff like whether the board is open or closed and what pieces have more value in those situations, why the centre is good to have control over, how to develope pieces and avoid common traps.
you cannot win reliably if you don't understand end game. End game is also the simplest as it involves the fewest pieces. Begin your learning studying end game puzzles, you will learn fundamental techniques like forking, recognising what pieces a player needs in order to check mate and what positions are stalemates, how to force moves. This will strengthen your late midgame ( you know what trades to take, what pieces you must keep in your situation), and help you avoid frustrating drawn out cat and mouse games.
After learning the very basics you also should just play chess. After all don't forget it's supposed to be about a fun game and the less you expect yourself to be good the less anxiety you'll face playing matches. Get used to the feeling of playing against people, don't overanalyse your early matches. Just play many games, lose most, learn new tricks and where you're weakest.
Eventually you'll start feeling like you need to learn openings to improve, you should do that then.
For clarity I'm talking about mock boards with like 3 pawns a side, a rook, a bishop and it's like "white to play and checkmate" or "white to play and mate in 3" etc for beginners. Where you learn like how you get a checkmate with 2 rooks or whatever.
Yeah fair enough. Before I did any kind of structured learning I used to get very frustrated at feeling like I was ready to win but not understanding how to, and occasionally throwing the game with massive blunders that cost tempo.
I don't play anymore though, I really dislike playing games that are well enough understood that you need to play somebody else's game to be competitive. 960 blitz is fun though, as that's all gut feeling no analysis (unless you're like a grandmaster).
Go is really fun but also stressful sometimes because it's such an open game tree. Modern boardgames are where I get most of my fun now.
I was around 1600 bouncing up and down on chess.com (which I think has somewhat inflated ratings?) and I felt like refusing to study openings was holding me back a lot. That's the upper end of mediocre I think?
Like at the absolute beginner level to maybe sub 100 games played I agree I guess. Good tactics will destroy people, I feel like when studying end games though you learn good tactics because you often have to capture a couple of pieces on the way.
Once you start playing against people into chess though everyone has done the same tactic puzzles and it's no longer enough to bounce back from a shitty board position.
But as noted I was never amazing so I'm probably talking out my arse :)
Eh I don't know what my actual rating is on chess.com I only have the courage to play when I'm drunk really, I don't like losing lol. But I think my tactics rating is like 2000-2100( I'm aware this is meaningless) so when I play someone in the 1400 range I don't give up no matter how hard I blunder and usually win. But that's anecdotal.
disclaimer: I am merely adequate at chess
Usual recommendation goes something like this:
early game is basically solved and tedious to learn first so don't worry about it yet. Maybe learn like the first 5 moves in a handful of popular openings if you're paralysed by indecision.
Midgame is too complex to understand for a beginner. Instead learn the broad fundamental principles and try to develop a sense for judging which positions are better. Stuff like whether the board is open or closed and what pieces have more value in those situations, why the centre is good to have control over, how to develope pieces and avoid common traps.
you cannot win reliably if you don't understand end game. End game is also the simplest as it involves the fewest pieces. Begin your learning studying end game puzzles, you will learn fundamental techniques like forking, recognising what pieces a player needs in order to check mate and what positions are stalemates, how to force moves. This will strengthen your late midgame ( you know what trades to take, what pieces you must keep in your situation), and help you avoid frustrating drawn out cat and mouse games.
After learning the very basics you also should just play chess. After all don't forget it's supposed to be about a fun game and the less you expect yourself to be good the less anxiety you'll face playing matches. Get used to the feeling of playing against people, don't overanalyse your early matches. Just play many games, lose most, learn new tricks and where you're weakest.
Eventually you'll start feeling like you need to learn openings to improve, you should do that then.
I disagree with your end game analysis, it's the least fun part for me and the hardest for me to calculate
For clarity I'm talking about mock boards with like 3 pawns a side, a rook, a bishop and it's like "white to play and checkmate" or "white to play and mate in 3" etc for beginners. Where you learn like how you get a checkmate with 2 rooks or whatever.
where would you suggest a beginner start?
I'm just bad at endgames because you can technically calculate to the end and I'm not smart
Yeah fair enough. Before I did any kind of structured learning I used to get very frustrated at feeling like I was ready to win but not understanding how to, and occasionally throwing the game with massive blunders that cost tempo.
I don't play anymore though, I really dislike playing games that are well enough understood that you need to play somebody else's game to be competitive. 960 blitz is fun though, as that's all gut feeling no analysis (unless you're like a grandmaster).
Go is really fun but also stressful sometimes because it's such an open game tree. Modern boardgames are where I get most of my fun now.
My take is it's mostly tactics. I'm not very good at chess but I'm better than most and it's mostly tactics.
I was around 1600 bouncing up and down on chess.com (which I think has somewhat inflated ratings?) and I felt like refusing to study openings was holding me back a lot. That's the upper end of mediocre I think?
Like at the absolute beginner level to maybe sub 100 games played I agree I guess. Good tactics will destroy people, I feel like when studying end games though you learn good tactics because you often have to capture a couple of pieces on the way.
Once you start playing against people into chess though everyone has done the same tactic puzzles and it's no longer enough to bounce back from a shitty board position.
But as noted I was never amazing so I'm probably talking out my arse :)
Eh I don't know what my actual rating is on chess.com I only have the courage to play when I'm drunk really, I don't like losing lol. But I think my tactics rating is like 2000-2100( I'm aware this is meaningless) so when I play someone in the 1400 range I don't give up no matter how hard I blunder and usually win. But that's anecdotal.