Do you agree with Jeremy Silman?

In his "Silman's Complete Endgame Course" Jeremy Silman claims that endgame should be studied in relevance to a player's playing strength. The book is divided into chapters according to rating and the author advises the readers to not proceed to the next chapter, if they do not have the appropriate rating.

Do you agree with this claim? Does anyone think that the endgame is an individual technical phase of the game that could be studied separately, meaning that a weak player could get good at it, even if he lacks strength in the other phases?

It's alot to take in. I am planning to read the chapters between 1000-1800 more than once. And also work with the positions. I think that will be more effective than reading up to 2400. And then use the saved time on other areas like middlegame, strategy etc.

Other sites also have data at which area you loses measured in pawn loss per 100 moves. If that loss is very high in the endgame it's time to study it more.

Before deciding whether or not to agree with Silman, one should be sure that one has correctly perceived what he said (with a quote). Here is one: "... personal adjustments can always be made. …"

you don't need to know chess endgame more than these viz-

1. opposition 

2. opposite colour rook pawn for the Bishop which is always a draw

3. all opposition in king and rook endgame are drawn except your king and pawn are on 6th and 5th pawn respectively and your opponent king is on 8 th rank

also watch this Daniel  rench

Helps a lot not to skip ahead too much in that book.

He is trying to find, what the reader is lacking. and make the book relevant to them.

That was the problem with this book I found. I paid a lot of money for it.

And 85% of the material was either way too basic. Or way too advanced for me.

Btu the rest, was exactly hat I needed to become a better endgame player.

Don't sell the endgame short.

I have won many a drawn game, and drawn many a lost game, because my opponent was lost, once we reached the endgame.

In fact, I am in one VC game right now, our opponents played masterfully the whole game. smacking us around all over the place. But then we reach the endgame, (our opponents up a pawn in a queen endgame.) and suddenly, they seemed to drop 300 rating points!

Now do we not only have a draw, but have serious chances of maybe winning.

silman is grossly overrated. endgames are the place to start as capa said. i will roll with capa over silman anyday.

Sure, a weak player can get good at certain theoretical endgames. Silman's point is that there is no point in studying the Vancura Endgame if you blunder your queen every second game. I do agree with that.

but op is a patzer.  he doesn't need that much endgame knowledge except some basic strategy like " the art of making asset and how to make another one if you have one" .  Also " how to strangle your opponent to death if you push your asset". 

my little brain figured out those thing by playing with others and not by sitting on all day in a room by pushing wood on a chessboard by reading  any book of any author. 

i cannot remember any bookish variation.  therefore,  these are my viewpoint

Did Silman ever say to not start with the endgame?

There is no one right and one wrong. You can choose whatever approach you want as long as you keep improving. 

Very nice!

give your brain a rest man will you? so he learned something from capa. whoopy freaking doo.

I think it was the Silman endgame book that has received some approval.

It's fine either way. In other words I think it's beneficial to study extra material, but only studying what's in Silman's book and only for your rating level is not bad.

Of course.

To a certain extent yes, a player can be stronger at the endgame than other phases.

Old masters tend to be that way, because the endgame is very logical and requires experience.

I told this one guy after the game that "It's as if every time a pair of pieces were exchanged you gained 20 rating points"