Endgame Advice?

I want to improve my endgame, I would like some advice from high rated players. I'll post my last game as an example of my endgame play:

Despite being 2 pawns up, I found it very difficult to win this complex endgame.
I noticed 1600-1700 players typically play the endgame better than me. Any advice on improving my endgame will be appreciated.
 

According to my philosophy, the middle game is way more important than the endgame. If you play the middle game like a pro you'll reach the endgame with a significant advantage and win. If you play the middle game extremely well, you may even win before the endgame.

However, since I am merely a 1500 player, I may be wrong. So here's a piece of advice - in order to improve your endgame skills start reading books! Take a look at this article from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_endgame_literature

Also, there's a book called Practical Chess Endings by Keres which was recommended by NM Reb in a chess.com forum 7 years ago.

Hmm, some strange moves, was this a blitz game?

Anyway, main thing I see is you're not really using the idea of two weaknesses. You seem to try to win directly on one side of the board. For example after 56.Ne2 play 56...Be5 with the idea of walking your king to his g pawn. Your bishop and b pawn will keep white king on passive defense. Even earlier on move 36 you have the same kind of idea. Instead of 36...g4 your idea should be to walk your king to the queenside and pick up pawns.

Also it seems you may not be aware (or sensitive) to the idea that pawns especially belong off the color of your bishop in an endgame. With fewer pieces on the board, each piece's activity is absolutely critical. E.g. your move 23...g5, both putting another pawn on a dark square and cutting your bishop off is a visually very ugly move (and objectively bad).

28...Re1 not only exchanges your active rook for his a1 rook, but now you enter a bishop vs knight endgame with (nearly) all your pawns on dark squares which is making it harder on you than necessary (even if you are objectively winning due to the pawn count).

------

Anyway, those few comments wont help your overall skill much.

I suggest these:

http://www.amazon.com/Endgame-Strategy-Cadogan-Chess-Books/dp/1857440633

and

http://www.amazon.com/Dvoretskys-Endgame-Manual-Mark-Dvoretsky/dp/1936490137

I'll answer you with a quote by capablanca "If you want to learn chess, learn the endgame".
And no, it is not possible to win consistantly with no endgame knowledge. It is always possible to simplify a middlegame into an endgame, but it is never possible to go from an endgame to a middlegame. Your philosophy is wrong.

Interesting quote. What I have to say is that it doesnt matter if it takes long or gets difficult. Chess is a difficult game. As long as you win the endgame, and never give your opponent any real chance to win, take it easy. Now. Endgames are crutial. Current world champion is champion because he plays solid middlegames and wins the endgame. The better you get, the more difficult it becomes to win IN the middlegame. Most games reach the endgame, and if your position is playable, you almost always can make a difference if you master that phase of the game.

One thing is you can't separate endgames from middlegames. Piece trades, pawn trades, and pawn structure all through the middlegame often must keep in mind which endgames are draws and which are wins. Even when playing for mate and sacrificing in front of the opponent's king, sometimes the defender can sacrifice back to avoid mate and you go into an endgame.

So it's not just about playing an endgame well after it appears, but about playing a middlgame with the endgame in mind so that you can reach a winnable (or drawable) endgame.

This is a wonderful quote by Capablanca.

Every chessplayer needs some endgame knowledge, no doubt about it. I'm only saying that midgame is more important, and I would improve my middlegame skills Before improving my endgame skills. Seems that we have a slightly different viewpoints when it comes to learning chess, but you are a better player.  By the way, IM Silmann has a wonderful quote about the stages in a chess game. He said:

"Play the openning like a book, Play the midgame like a magician, Play the endgame like a machine".

Endgame is about accurate calculations, Midgame is about creativity, imagination, tactics & strategy. But in the end of the day they all complete each other, just like two different pieces of the same puzzle

Recognizing that the OP's request was for feedback from "high rated players", I have to ask his pardon for being so presumptuous as to offer my opinion.  

Nevertheless I will toss in my two cents, while hoping to not offend...

The original question was not whether the endgame was more important than the middlegame (or any other part of the game, which leaves the opening).  The essence of the question was how to improve the OP's endgame play.

The answer to the question has to be - study the endgame!  Particularly the kinds of endgames you have the most problem with.  Of course I am not revealing any big secret here - this is the obvious answer.  There is no other way to acquire (other than the most rudimentary) endgame skill, than the simple fact that it has to be studied.

The following are some excellent general endgame books -

"Endgame Workshop" by Bruce Pandolfini

"Silman's Complete Endgame Course" by Jeremy Silman

"100 Endgames You Must Know" by Jesus de la Villa

"101 Endgame Tips" by Steve Giddins

"Understanding Endgames" by John Nunn

"Fundamental Chess Endings" by Muller & Lamprecht

Certainly, there are many other excellent endgame books, especially those specific to various subsets of endings, say, pawn endings and rook endings.  I will leave it to the reader to discover those.

Thank you very much. So far your comment was the most helpful.
I'll try one of the books you proposed. 

You are welcome.  The books are listed from least (Pandolfini), to most advanced (Muller & Lamprecht).  But they are all excellent, as far as serving their intended purpose is concerned.  

By the way.  Don't underestimate the Pandolfini book.  I learned a lot about the technique of "Opposition" from it, which is indespensible in endgames with pawns.  If you aren't already really good at it, I recommend to learn everything about the "Opposition" like you know the back of your hand!

You are taking the right step in chess improvement by studying endgames. Aside from reading enfgame books, solving endgame puzzles and studies, you need PRACTICE in playing endgames, winning and drawing. A partner is best. 2nd best is playing endgames with engines. In Fritz, you can setup endgame positions found in books. Play the winning side against the best. A 2 pawn advantage is an easy win for my level.

I value Openings over the Middle game and End game.

The Opening shall always be first!

All games in chess have an Opening.

However, not all games have a Middle and End game.

If you was to ask me to chose between only Middle Game and Endgames.

I would say Middle Game.

For the Middle game is second and far ahead of the Endgame.

The hierarchy of the chess phases goes as following:

1- Opening Game

2- Middle Game

3- End Game

Matancs92 post number 2 is correct.

Middle games are more important than End Games.

Which is why the Middle Game is second.

His philosophy is not wrong.

This game had opening mistakes.

However, both sides manage to survive the opening.

The area of the game which was not survived was in the middle game.

Black managed to get a nice advantage in the middle game.

However, you than proceeded to rush into an endgame by trading off the rooks.

0110001101101000 post #3 gave you wonderful suggestions on some of the bad moves you made in your middle game.

Instead of 28...Re1 you should of played 28...f5 the white rook is doing nothing.

Your rook is dominating the center of the board. Why would you trade it?

You are trading off your active rook for white's undeveloped passive rook.

If you would of played f5 defending your rook this game will never reach an endgame.

Your opponent would of resigned in the middle game.

You have all the time in the world to attack him and take advantage of his poorly placed pieces.

If I was to give you a small example with a funny move.

Look at that funny move Be1 supported by the rook on e4.

What is white to do in this position?

I mean honestly how does he free himself?

Believe it or not the move h3 is the engines top move for white which stops g4+.

It is trying to slow you down from mobilizing your king side pawns.

Which is to say I said it was a waiting move.

However, it is the engines top waiting move.

It makes sense.

The move I am showing you Be1 is not even top 5 lol.

Yet it still looks crushing.

Look at the picture below:

The white knight can not even move with out going backwards.

The rook on a1 has been closed off to only having 4 files and it will be tied down to defending c3.

Why on earth would anyone trade down to an endgame.

When they can play this awesome position right here in the middle game.

You did ask for endgame advice which I would like to give you for sure.

My First endgame advice is do not trade down into an endgame when you can play an awesome middle game.

I mean honestly if you play Be1 which is not even the strongest move your opponent would of probably resigned.

Look how sad that looks.

My Second endgame advice will be put it in a puzzle.

It happens at move 37...h4

White to play and win the game.

You can try and solve the problem.

Hopefully you was able to solve the puzzle.

My Second endgame advice is to watch for undefended pieces.

Don't hang pieces unless you see a concrete way of winning the game.

Black is completely lost after that move.

White in the game did not see the move for what ever reason.

After which black had alot of different ways to try and convert the win.

One way which I would like to talk about.

Might be one of the simpliest ones to remember.

Granted black could of played other moves which could of helped him win sooner.

However, I think the below advice is worth mentioning.

Not only is the below advice good for the endgame.

However, it can sometimes come in huge handy in other phrases of the game.

My Third endgame advice is using the bishop to box out the knight.

In the above position white played the move 56.Ne2.

Which gives black the chance to play against the knight.

The Term people call it is boxing out the knight.

First lets talk about what we are doing when we say box the knight?

To box something it usually means you are trying to surround it!

When you box something up you try to surround it on all sides.

The way to do that in chess with the bishop would be to try and take away as many squares as possible from the knight.

In the below example: You can see all of the knights squares.

In this position the squares which are highlighted in green are the squares we really want to focus on.

The reason why is because we have a pass B pawn.

From the green squares the knight can try and delay us or cause the most damage to us.

From the yellow squares the knight can't really do a whole lot of damage to us which is why they are not a huge priority.

From the red squares the knight is out of play.

In the game black played 56...Kd3?? which I will call a blunder.

Obviously in this position black has better.

In fact, black has multiple moves which can accomplish the win here.

The best move for black is 56...Be3.

Can you see why?

The black knight on c4 is controlling the c3 + d4 square.

Thus, the only real square we need to take away from the knight would be the c1 square.

Furthermore, by playing Be3 it would also cut off the white king from moving to c1 or even to d2

Which is why the move Be3 is the best move.

We have other options which also help in our effort to surround the knight.

Several other options are:

Be5

Bb2

The reason we are trying to box the knight out is because truthfully.

We are more than willing to trade off the bishop for the knight in this position.

Black is up 1 pass pawn.

Thus, if an exchange of minor pieces happens it could benefit us.

If we try to surround/cover as many squares from the knight as possible we have a better chance at setting up a minor piece trade.

This same strategy is seen alot in the middle game.

Usually it happens when you find yourself up 1 minor piece and your opponent is left with 1 knight minor piece.

If we can image a scenerio such as:

1 knight + 1 bishop  vs  1 knight

After 1 trade

1 knight vs  0 pieces

Usually it is a lot harder to set up a knight to knight trade.

Compared to a bishop to knight trade

Review:

Key points which I think we can learn from this game:

Keeping your pieces active -

As pointed out by others 23...g5 made our dark bishop less active. We couldn't retreat him any more.

We should strive to keep our pieces the most active as we can.

Knowing when to enter a different phase of the game -

At one point during the game we could of capitalized in the middle game on whites poorly placed pieces. Instead black entered a end game phase by trading down.

We should work on knowning when to enter a new phase and when to stay on the current one.

In the above examples I showed we got a chance to see how it was benefiting us more to stay in the middle game.

Knowing when to trade -

Who offers the trade?

The rule of thumb here can be based on the activity of your pieces compared to your opponents pieces.

Several times during this game this issue popped up.

Black offered trades when he shouldn't.

If we have the better pieces we should not initiate the trade.

If a trade has to happen let the opponent be the one who initiates the trade.

Our pieces are better.

If white does nothing our pieces would stay better!

The move Re1 is a perfect example in this game.

It trys to initiate/offer a trade of the rooks.

The white rook never developed in this game.

Its first developing move was to trade itself off!

Meanwhile black put so much effort in their rook.

It was on e4 and moved several times.

We invested alot of time and energy in that star piece to have it give itself up for a piece that never even moved.

White might of not even realized they had a rook on a1 until we played Re1?

When do we want to do trades?

The rule of thumb here can be based on several different things.

• The Material count
• Fending off an attack
  
• Reducing activity of the opponent
  
• Calcuation
  
• Strategic plan
  

The ones highlighted in red are more relevent to this particular game.

However, I put some of the others up for nice reference.

At the ending of this game we saw very clearly how.

We was up 1 pawn and we should of activity been searching to try and set up a bishop for knight trade.

This same idea ties in with reducing our opponents activity.

The knight in the ending position is their only last active piece.

If it is gone it is king + 1 pawn vs king + 2 pawns.

We would be completely win.

Calcuation & Sacrifices & Hanging pieces -

I think this applys to more interemidate level players.

Usually I do not think they try to hang pieces on purpose.

I believe what ends up happening is they try to calcuate a set of moves which requires a sacrifice.

In this game I believe black may have been calcuating a bishop sacrifice.

However, more than likely miss calcuated and the sacrifice ended up being nothing more than a hanging piece with no compensation.

Lastly, I would like to end this with a nice quote which I think sums up this game.

“If your opponent cannot do anything active, then don’t rush the position; instead you should let him sit there, suffer, and beg you for a draw”
 

-Jeremy Silman

The OP's original request for assistance began with....

"I want to improve my endgame,"

It wasn't which part of a chess game (opening vs middlegame vs endgame) was most important. 

True.

However, Since people did bring it up I felt like sharing my opinion on both 

9d

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708095144/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review701.pdf

http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/theres-an-end-to-it-all

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708103149/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review594.pdf

http://dev.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/100-Endgames-You-Must-Know-p3863.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708105702/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review645.pdf

http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/theres-an-end-to-it-all

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708085117/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review574.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708234309/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review704.pdf

http://seagaard.dk/review/eng/bo_endgame/ga_fundamental_chess_endings.asp?KATID=BO&ProductID=104&PUBID=GA&AUTID=69&BUYID=&ID=BO-Endgame

"Might be wrong"?

Uhm, you are wrong!

Understanding the endgame is critical, and more important than the middlegame for multiple reasons:

1) If you don't understand how to execute positions with 6 pieces on the board, how are you going to operate with 32 pieces?

2) Knowing endgames makes you better at middlegames because then you actually know whether a liquidation (trade down) is appropriate or not because you will already know whether the end result of the combination is a won endgame or merely a draw.  If it's a draw, you don't trade down.  If it's a win, trade down and win the technical part of the game.  Why try to play something flashy if you figured out a forced tradedown is a win?

For example, do you know how to win this position?  If you don't, then how would you ever know in a middlegame when it's appropriate to trade down?  If I know I can force this position, I will take it all day because I know how to win it.  Many don't!