i agree. studying/learning endgames will greatly improve your overall chess ability. opening study should come later.
endgame's
Sort:
Yes. But you should study a little bit of the opening so you don't get caught in any traps at the beginning of the game.
End games are the most important! Even Karpov says that they are.
tonydal wrote:
chesstrophy wrote:
If you study the endgame, you learn the heart of chess.
I really have no idea what this means (although I believe I've seen the quote before). Afraid I don't really think that your answer is "the" answer. Both are equally important in learning the game.
Of course I'll agree that any player who studies one aspect in exclusion to the others will be very weak -- but pound for pound endgame knoweldge gives you more than an opening line.
I won't say one is more important than the other, but I will say this:
My opening knowledge has always been weak, but my endgame knowledge is much better. I have pulled out many wins in the endgame after having been outplayed in the opening. And, for some reason, much more satisfying to me, I have pulled out many draws from games I really wanted to just quit and resign...but when it gets down to an endgame, it is much more interesting and so I spend more time thinking. I am often surprised at how an opponent who is winning against me, seems to lose the path in the endgame and allows me to set up a drawing position. So, in summation...I think endgames are important, but maybe I wouldn't have so many endgames if my opening skills were stronger.
But there is something to them. Endgames are more important.
tonydal wrote:
Not if you're never able to reach them... :)
Exactly.
I have used this golfing analogy before. All the top players tell you putting is the most important part of the game.
IMO, it is only useful if you can reach the green in a reasonable number of shots. One putt triple bogeys are still triple bogeys.
Great endgame technique is only useful in playable positions
tonydal wrote:
Yeah, probably the reason they say that is because all of them are already 300+ yards off the tee! If I remember right (from my brief sojourn in the world of golf), the notion was that, since a 2-foot-putt is equivalent to a monster drive (ie, one shot), somehow that made it appear to be more important...or controlable...or something. Sounds like the notion came from the same specious source as this whole "heart of chess" business.
I suspect the real reason for this sort of thing is to make the speaker sound terribly subtle and profound.
When I became interested in chess there was no one I knew locally to play with. I played for 3 years on Yahoo! chess and read maybe two books, one of tactics puzzles and I think the second was Reinfeld's complete chess player.
Obviously I'm going to gain playing strength after filling the endgame hole (I did) but what I think you're leaving out is that it's not just endgame technique itself that's gained, but I often consider the type of endgames I could run into every time I trade a minor piece and every time I have to decide between capturing with a pawn (for a passer) or with a rook (for activity). I also find myself asking, things like who would be better if the heavy pieces came off etc. Often other class players give me great endgame odds just because of the minor pieces they're willing to trade. So it helped me in other areas of chess too, specifically all through the middle game.
If I'm rated 1200 and blunder a knight every game then it's true things like this aren't immediately important to the player. I also agree you have to be well rounded. Also it's very tough to get even a likeable middle game position out of a very well booked opponent. So openings are benificial throughout the game also.
My thinking is that opening knoweldge only helps for one specific opening (or openings that lead to similar structures). So after you're very well studied, it can start to help every game (very hard for beginners who don't understand the why to begin with) -- while having well rounded basic endgame skills takes less time to start to help every game (which is giving them a why throughout the middlegame).
It would be silly to try and quantify hours to games benefits when it's obvious a player needs both, but the way my thinking goes it's not so out there to suggest that in a general way endgame study helps more.
JonK wrote:
But there is something to them. Endgames are more important.
You are correct
.
pawnkeeper wrote:
End games are the most important! Even Karpov says that they are.
Really? I never knew that.
[COMMENT DELETED]
[COMMENT DELETED]
chesstrophy wrote:
Do you think studying endgame's is more important or openings?
What of endgame's are we supposed to be studying?
I think it probably depends on playing strength as well as playing style. For lower level players, openings are almost completely unnecessary; but at GM level, without openings, you'll almost never reach an endgame. Also, if you play openings that frequently lead to endgames, endgames become more important.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
Do you think studying endgames is more important or openings? I think endgames are more important. Know why? You can have a really good opening and middlegame but then at the endgame you could lose if you play badly and only study the opening.