I've been playing chess for about a month, learning strategies and principles along the way. Initially, reviewing my games to identify frequent mistakes helped me progress from a complete novice to understanding basic principles, such as controlling the center and developing knights and bishops.
However, as I continue to review my games, I've noticed that my errors aren't usually due to a lack of understanding of these principles. For instance, I often recognize a better move immediately after a mistake is pointed out. Some errors are only evident with the chess engine's analysis, predicting sequences far beyond my current ability to foresee during a game. So, I'm focusing less on these for now.
My main issue is failing to notice critical elements like weaknesses in my defense or opportunities to capture freely. This often happens because there's a lot to consider on the board, and I'm unsure where to focus.
I understand that pattern recognition improves with practice, and I have noticed some progress. Yet, in a recent online class on various aspects of chess theory, it was suggested that studying positional theory might enhance my board analysis skills. However, when I inquired about identifying weaknesses without assistance, the instructor mentioned that this involves tactics, which is a separate topic from positional theory, but equally important.
While I intend to study both eventually, since they're both important and go hand in hand, given my specific short-term goal of minimizing blunders by recognizing critical threats and opportunities, should I prioritize learning positional theory to analyze the board better, or should I focus more on tactics to identify and exploit weaknesses more effectively?
Or should I try to find a resource that explicitly teaches both as a more unified theory? Is asking whether to focus more on one or the other at first like asking if I should focus more on grammar or vocabulary when first learning a new language?