What do you think about this priority list?

I tried to come up with an order of how important rules are in general. Of course it always depends, but as a weak player I need something to hold on. This is what I think. Please leave a comment on how you would change the order. For example if you think pawnstructure is more important than center control and so on.

1. Applying tactics
2. King Safety
3. Complete Piece Development
4. Queen Exchange and Attacking Pawn Moves Considerations
5. Having a plan and switching between plans
6. Exchange Rules
7. Open & Closed Game Rules (if you have knights keep position closed)
8. Piece activity
9. Center Control
10. Control over other keysquares
11. File control
12. Healthy pawn structure
13. Piece harmony, safeness and improvement
14. Attacking and pressuring points

pawn structure should be much higher. Think about it, in some pawn structures all pieces become useless, well placed pawns can completely deny a pieces worth, or accentuate it. Tactics aren't that important, your structure shouldn't just rely on tricks.
Here's how I would do it.
1. Square control (more squares usually = easier play, center squares are more valuable)
2. Useful (no inaccuracy, mistake, blunder) move count
3. Pawn structure (defines middlegame and how well you'll fare in an endgame)
4. King safety
5. Piece cohesiveness (Centralization, working together well) and attacks. For example: have 2 knights on dark square bishop pointing at one target would be strong.
6. Points
7. Active pieces
8. Tactics
9. Light square/dark square dominance

"Tactics aren't that important, your structure shouldn't just rely on tricks."

Tricks are something completely different. Tactics are something that always works out and for example win a piece without having a huge positional disadvantage.

"Think about it, in some pawn structures all pieces become useless"

This is covered by "piece activity" which is higher on the list as you can see. If the pawn structure would block the bishop they could not be active.

"1. Square control"

King safety has to be more important than square control? So what if you control a square but get checkmated? lol

"5. Piece cohesiveness"

This is what I meant by piece harmony at point 13

Thank you for your answer but can you please use the 14 points I listed so I know how you would change the order? So I know what you think is MORE important than something different. For example you didn't mention attacks or file control at all. Square dominance is interesting tho, I will add that.

Seems like "blunder check" should be on the list.

@clutchnutz Blunder check is nothing you can compare to other points as it applies to every move. This is about deciding the importance of specific principles.

King safety is easily the most important.
Piece activity.
Control of open lines.
Initiative.
pawn structure.
material.

@OnlyBetterNoBlitz Hey, this is your thread so no argument here but for those thinking about such lists, it seems that blunder checks would be practically as important as anything on that list because most games are lost by blunders.

Also, you have "king safety" as a principle and I would consider "blunder check" to be a "piece safety" principle. Also, king safety, safeness and improvement should apply to every move as well.
ex. "Is my king safe" "am I improving my position" and "am I not blundering" would all be valid questions to ask oneself prior to moving.

Otherwise, "piece harmony, safeness and improvement" seems to cover the idea of blunder checking - so I would put that much further up the list... at least for me. My downfall is usually dumb blunders and uncoordinated pieces that lead to the game falling apart before the end game.

@clutchnutz
With piece harmony, safeness and improvement I mean further improving pieces (like outposts etc. and getting them to be guarded) as soon as all pieces are developed and somewhat active.
I understand your point with blunders but I especially blunder at queen and pawn moves/captures which is on point 4 already very high on the list

At any given point, one or the other of those could become most important. So I think concocting such lists is self-defeating.

@MrPushwood can you name such examples where something becomes very important and moves up on the list far? The way I intended it to be was that if there are no tactics you move on to point 2, if the king is perfectly safe you move on to point 3 and so on. Can you show an example position where this concept would not work anymore? Also what I wrote is mainly for the middlegame, not the endgame. I always play the endgame intuitively