Endgame is the best to study, however. I have learned more from the end then the middle.

Mid game should be by FAR the most voted. The only reason people should vote more for the opening is if you have tons of experience but have never studied.

Everything done in the middlegame is done for the endgame.

That's why when you understand the endgame you can get the results you want.

Those who play the middlegame just to mate, without thinking ahead, will have a really bad endgame.

What is wrong with you?

Those who think the endgame is the easiest part of chess obviously haven't studied.

The opening is very easy. Absolutely no trouble.

Once you know the fundementals, even a 700 ELO rated player would play it like a 2400 ELO.

I notice that whenever I play the game, the worst part of my opponents play is the endgame. It's never the opening or middlegame. 

the middlegame decides who is thinking and who is not thinking.

I aslo think Chessking 47 is right:Chessking47

The middle and end game in my experience always gets scrwed because of the bad opening but not necesarilly good when the opening goes well

If I lose games, it's usually in the middlegame.

I think they need another option:  From the first move to the last.

IM Mikhail Baturyn gives excellent advice on this; go to baturynchess.com. Watch the boring slideshow on the front page, and I want you to catch the slide "On the GM level, chess is 90% openings..." 

It depends what level you are on. For beginners and intermediates (amateurs), you should build the opening repetoire and find tactics. After you learn tactics, do strategy. After you do strategy, do middlegame. After those concepts are solid, study openings. Hopefully you will start winning.

Frank124c summed up my thoughts completely, but there's no "like" button here.

i always screw up during the endgame

How is the middle game the most important? The opening and the endgame are really what matters

I'm appalling at everything, so I don't know what I should answer here.

What's the point of studying the endgame if you lose b4 u get to it? Studying middle game is helpful but u can get a bad middlegame if u don't no ur openings. My idea is to study a tactical opening and to learn all the tactics involved, this gets u to a good middle game which leads 2 a good endgame which you then blunder away!

For me, I'd have to say it's almost a tie between working on my middle-/endgame play - as since I usually have virtually no problems in the opening phase (where I'm strongest), 'that' often not only leads to a [lazy] 'advantage' towards my middlegame tactics, but oftentimes equally pays homage to any [misconstrued] consequential oversight [for unwanted draws] in my endgame strategy - namely, in minor piece and pawn endings (i.e. any equal combination of: B[s]/N[s] + P[s] vs B[s]/N[s] + P[s]).

This [or 'my', should I say] lack of understanding of misinterpreted 'advantages' is perhaps where I'm really most weakest (in any phase of the game, for that matter), least of where it be judgement of position, tactical gambles, inherent colour-complex weaknesses, concepts of 'time' [initiative], but more so in the dynamics of precise pawn play.

Therefore, I firmly believe that if one [or 'I'] could only master this one part of the game (i.e. when/where to push/hold/gambit/capture a pawn [vs pawn/position]), regardless of any other strategic concept (except for defensive play), at least half of the game should be mastered, in any phase of the game.

And as it is without reason that pawns (and their precise pawn play) do influence the governance of play in any particular phase, that may - or may not - be advantageous to the player who subsequently utilizes - or abuses - their inherent law and order, then the 'matter' [of pawns] itself should largely dispense for any argument over the 'energy' required towards meeting a phase in question.

And that's the way I see it! ...

None of these phases are horrible for someone of my strength (approx 2050 USCF; weak vs Comps and masterss, but basically reasonably competent across the three areas); it is more that I no longer calculate as I used to, so that middlegames are perforce my weak point relative to the others.  In fact though, it is typically the phase leading into transition to endgame where I lose ground.

Everything is weak compared to GM's and Computers lol

decent opening,STRONG middlegame and accurate endgame skill ...

Wrighter has it down  but i seem to have a balance equally poor in all phases lol lol lol