Are tactics really the way to go?

If you look at games of 1600 players, you will find plenty of them that the winning side lost.

So, yes, you are right: Studying endgames, is a waste of time. Better not study endgames, and waste points. Infallible strategy indeed.

Don't get uppity pfren ... 

All of that is possible.  I dont know, Im not Russian, and never been there :-)

The nice thing about just being an average player is...I get to study what and when i want.  Opening study doesnt interest me at all.  I see so many posts on here about players looking for tactical/agressive openings, but when you review there games they are dropping pieces, missing tactics, and generally have no idea what they are doing. 

I enjoy studying what and when i want and playing in tournaments purely for the fun.

So, yes, you are right: Studying endgames, is a waste of time. Better not study endgames, and waste points. Infallible strategy indeed.

pfren: How about making an argument instead of your standard sneering?

If you look at games of 1600 players I doubt you will find many endings in which neither side is already lost .  Most 1600 players make opening and middlegame mistakes so if they do reach an ending they are often lost already , objectively .  For such players to spend a lot of time on complex rook and pawn endings or queen endings is a waste , they should be spending their study time on openings and middlegames/tactics until they are reaching endings in which they arent already lost .

Reb: Thanks! That's pretty much where I am.

Like you, my three friends who made it to 2200 didn't study endgames much either.

For the record, I'm not against endgame study. I just don't think it's the magic key to chess improvement for beginners and class players.

I think end game study is very important.  I will give my students positions, and ask them to solve them.  They give me a blank look, until i remove some of the pieces/pawns, and BLAM!  Its an endgame position they recognize. 

"I ask where is the evidence that studying the endgame is the key to improvement for developing players."

Kasparov, Kramnik, Leko, Karpov, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Korchnoi, Svidler, Yusupov, and many others' successes.  Capablanca, Botvinnik, and many others throughout the ages have strongly recommended endgame study. 

Why is Carlsen the greatest player in the world?  It is simply due to his outstanding grasp of major piece endings, which during his previous match with Anand he won convincingly.  With two rooks and a queen vs. similar Anand simply got outplayed.  Carlsen is great in everything but his endgame technique stands out in particular. 

You have to consider the audience when relying on any quotes of study  Study the endgame is good advice for a 2000 looking to make 2200.  Not so much for an 800 looking to make 1000.  And speaking of Yusupov, in his Fundamentals series (orange books), the endgame takes a huge backseat to tactics and piece activity.  So once again, people like to quote authoritative figures out of context to support their arguments.

Andy Soltis is another author who gave specific advice on how to advance from the amateur ranks with regards to the endgame.  

"Biyiasas was pragmatic, the very opposite of Zuckerman.  he thought studying such an endgame (rook and bishop v rook) was a waste of time.  If you're going to work on your endgame skill, polish your techniques. [...]   White (Biyiasas) knew very little about the book theory of R+B v R, but he was able to rely on his knowledge of the basic techniques - keeping his rook active, not allowing his king to be cornered and so on."

That example was a game between two TITLED players.  Not even amateurs or experts.  

However, I think there are some good secondary benefits to endgame study early on, it just shouldn't be much more serious than basic K+P principles and simple mates.

We get caught up in the meaning of the word "study" like we do in threads about the opening.  Any beginner whipping out Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual isn't making the best use of his time.

People like to say "study the endgame to improve because I read somewhere that Capablanca said that".  Okay, if you're a 1000 player, how should you study the endgame?  What about a 1500 player?  2000 player?  2200 player?  Context is very important.

Since the OP of this thread is 900 on tactics trainer with an 1100 standard rating, yes he needs to focus primarily on tactics.  That will give him the best return on investment for his time.  Yes you can tell him to "study the endgame", but it shouldn't be an area of intense focus which is what the word study implies.

Agreed.

Well said.

For the OP I'd say:

70% tactics study focusing on the basic motifs.  John Bain's tactics book is your bible.  Torsten Mattson's 2 e-books on basic checkmate patterns is a good complementary work.

25% reading instructive game books via authors like Chernev/Giddins/McDonald.  That will cover a lot of basic strategy for the opening, middlegame and endgame.  

5% specific opening/endgame study.  Pick your repertoire and learn them 5-6 moves out.  Just focus on the mainlines.  Learn some endgame mates with overwhelming material and the basic principles of K+P endgames.

Great info, thanks. The problem imo is that training tactics is very easy to set up and fun to do.

When one is trying to train logical chess like you described where will he find it? LT, Logical Training on chesscom? LT  on Chesstempo? Who reads books these days? Let alone a chess book. And wich one to choose out of the zillions offered? And it won't be as much fun as TT. The only reason it hardly excists.

"Okay, if you're a 1000 player, how should you study the endgame?  What about a 1500 player?  2000 player?  2200 player?  Context is very important."

Depends on their playing strength relative to that area of the game.  The 2000 could have an 1800's understanding of the endgame so he should approach it as if he were rated 1800. If a 1000 performs in the ending like a 1400 then he should study the endgame as if he were 1400.

It's great that so many people, including world champions, have recommended endgame study, but I'm asking for reasoning rather than appeals to authority.

I've no doubt endgame study is useful in general and becomes increasingly important as one meets more skillful players.

My question is how crucial is endgame study for an average player--not someone aspiring to become a GM.

Average players will reach the Lucena Position about as often as they reach the fifteenth move of their favorite Najdorf line.

It seems lots of people achieve Expert, even Master, ratings without much endgame study. How crucial can endgame study be if that's the case?

If a 1000 [player] performs in the ending like a 1400 then he should study the endgame as if he were 1400.

Or he might taper off endgame study and focus on tactics or whatever is holding his rating down to 1000. Developing his endgame to 1600 level will be of no use if he plays the opening and middlegame like a 1000 player.

I suspect endgame study is a self-correcting problem. When an improving player notices he is losing points and half-points because of poor endgame technique, he will get serious about studying the endgame.

88 Posts and 88 different answers how to study.  I started with endgames and middle games, and opening principles, and that got me to USCF A class.  Just started staudying tactics a couple months ago. 

So there ya have another method of study.

Fiveofswords; I'm open to your idea that endgame study generalizes in useful ways to the rest of your game. I'm sure there's truth to it.

But it also reminds me of the nuns who told me that learning Latin would make it easier to learn Spanish. That turned out to be true. It was easier to learn Spanish after Latin.

But I rather suspect if I had spent four years learning Spanish, instead of two years for Latin, then two years for Spanish, I would have known a heckuva lot more Spanish when I got out of high school.

When I beat a player more than 200 points beneath me, it is almost invariably because he misses something tactical. When I lose to a player more than 200 points above me, it is often (although less frequently) because I miss something tactical. Therefore tactics are extremely important.

Fiveofswords: I was intrigued by your earlier claim that you don't bother to calculate when you play class players, you just play straightforward moves.

So your additional claim now is that your method of productive, logical thinking can be best illustrated in the endgame.

I'm even more intrigued. Please say more or provide an example.

@Fiveofswords most positions don't have tactics, but most games do. If you miss something that you have to save yourself from danger, or if you miss an opponent's tactic, then that one slip-up will cost you the game. And while you can avoid complications to an extent, you will inevitably have to deal with complicated positions at some point. After all, most high-rated players advocate for youngsters to play the open games or Sicilians in order to create complicated positions. They can learn the tactics and calculation first, and then later the positional stuff will come.