Is there some sort of order on how relevant things are?

How about letting the pawn structure dictate piece flow in middle and endgame? In other words after development of pieces and a few pawns in opening, look at where the pawn chains are pointing and build around that....

Position before submission. 🙂

@royalblue04 I already analysed the game, it was just an example on what I tried to say. Of course f4 is fighting for central important squares - but the downside was that it made the game a more closed one and blocked my own bishop as well as opening the diagonal to my king. The question is how to judge whether this move is worth being played or not which is what I am struggling with.

The idea of Ng5 was to maybe sacrifice it on e6 in case the queen wouldn't move away.

Never play a move (Ng5) and expect your oponent will play a bad answer. Maybe black don't even noticed your idea, because he has to move the queen anyway. With Ng5 you have surrenderd the center to your opoment, f4 doesn't change that. Maybe it tries to make the best of it, but your oponent is the one who is in control of the center.

To answer the original question: "Is there some sort of order on how relevant things are?"

tcec-chess.com/ attempts to answer that question, by assigning an evaluation to every position, and selecting the moves which produce the best evaluations. A few years ago a human attempted to replicate this:
www.wsj.com/articles/chess-novice-challenged-magnus-carlsen-1510866214

... and later lczero.org/came along, although we never found a way for humans to easily reproduce its results.

@Toadofsky Unfortunately your links are either dead or unreadable. How can I read the wall street article?

#16 Sorry, I can't find the article in the internet archive either:
web.archive.org/web/20180501193323/https://www.wsj.com/articles/chess-novice-challenged-magnus-carlsen-1510866214