I hate endgames

I don't often have to play a real, hardcore endgame.  Usually one side or the other resigns before then.  Occasionally I do have to play a long, complicated endgame.  I'm finding that I really don't enjoy that part of the game.  Maybe it's because it seems mysterious -- lots of subtle moves that I don't understand.

Anyone else hate endgames?

"Maybe it's because it seems mysterious -- lots of subtle moves that I don't understand." I suspect one would cite the same reasons for liking endgames.

I feel exactly the same way! Against opponents at my own level, my biggest strength is winning material in the midgame. So in nearly every game that I've won, my opponent resigned in the midgame when he was hopelessly behind in material. However, if I finish the midgame without gaining a material advantage and move on into an equal endgame, I will lose most of the time.

I, OTOH, hate openings.  It's probably just as well we don't play each other.

I don't mind openings -- but mostly because I use an openings database for my first 10 moves (I play online chess).

BTW, what does OTOH mean?

OTOH means On the other hand.

I also prefer endgames to the opening.  I find the opening more complicated and there are so many permutations and possible threats and traps to watch out for.  Also, in quite a few openings it seems like you really have to know the lines to be able to play them well.  In the endgame, on the other hand, trying to memorize lines isn't much use - it seems to be more about skill and technique.

Then study endgames, you will appreciate it if you study it. Start with king pawn endgames, then basic rook endgames like lucena, philidor and vancure position, then study rook endgame where you have a passed pawn. After these proceed studying minor piece endgames like bishop vs knight endgames. I assume you know basic endgame mate of rook  and king vs lone king.

There's an old saying that goes something like, "those who study openings learn openings, while those who study endgames learn chess!"

I'm hopeless at end games. I get the starting reasonably well, get lost somewhere in the middle game and by the end game, if I'm still playing, I'm hopeless.

endgames are the glory of chess, they involve much finesse, and principles that when applied yield satisfying results! Endgames superior to openings and middle games

This game is probably the best (Rook) end-game that I've ever played:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/a-study-like-endgame

learn the openings and you learn to play the openings, learn the endgame and you learn to play chess.

endgame is my favorite part. it's all clear and logical. middlegames on the other hand, especially symmetrical middlegames, confuse me.

what i like about the endgame is that every single move counts. in the middlegame you can get away with making an average move or a whole bunch of them.

That's why it is recommended to study endgames first. It is hard to play the endgames well, but you can train your endgame skills.

I find that, somewhere between the opening and the endgame, I switch between two completely different games of chess... Oftentimes I will finish an endgame, and then realize that I have completely no idea how we reached the position!

Does that make any sense at all?

At my level, rarely are endgames reached that are anywhere near equal. And If I do get to a somewhat equal endgame, it's always helpful to treat it as a solvable position. Really, even complicated endings are generally solvable. The opening, however, allows for far too many correct options...

Anyways. Just me rambling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawid_Janowski famously said "I detest the endgame", which I find sympathetic given that all strong players and weak players wanting to sound as if they are strong nowadays almost sound as if real chess consists of a dull rook endgame while middlegame combinations are boring. Well, maybe Janowski would have done a bit better in that title match if he in fact hadn't detested the endgame.

The endgame is the fruit of good positional play.  A good positional player can hold up even at material loss in the middle game to go on and steamroll a pawn or two for promotion and dazzle a "tactical" player who's now frozen in his tracks with his rooks and queen.

If a tactical player is too lazy to work endgames, he might as well take up checkers!

I for one look for opportunities to get into calculating endgames, and play them for practice and analysis, even if I can't get a win or a draw. But the tactical player who hasn't learned endgame theory better practice his checkmating skills, otherwise he is a sitting duck!

With the new invention of very accurate and quick analysis with engines: perhaps we can invent a game type where if the engine says you are down more than 4.5 pawns (positionally or otherwise) you automatically lose, and when the computer decides you are in endgame it automatically ends it? that might be fun(ner).

Never really hated anything about Chess. If I'm in an endgame, usually one with Rooks and Pawns and then I just realized I made a mistake, "crap" and just give myself a facepalm. I think the hardest part is deciding whether to resign or play it out to "see what happens."  It usually ends up like this: "Eh. Let's just see this...hmmmm...ok I can't stop that Pawn, this game is lost!!!"