Endgame vs Opening

Yeah I know Waitzkin said that but I'm pretty sure that he was playing too weak opponents in those tournaments. I'm only a class C player and I have never lost a game where I ended one pawn up from the opening in a long timed tournament game. There mostly is no simple recovery from compensationless pawn losses even at lower levels, unless you're playing blitz chess. Ofc this is mostly only true if you face an opponent of your own strength. A GM that somehow would lose a pawn against me would simply crush me after 10-15 moves anyway. so what I'm saying is that Josh was either trying to make a point for sake of it (because endgames are important too) or he was lazy and really didn't study openings which is dumb imo.

As I said, study both and you'll improve faster and if you are trying to pick one of them to start off with just go with your gut and start with the one you think is more fun and then do the other.

Honestly, I could tell you the same thing from openings, that it helped the understanding of the entire game (yes, even endgames). Every opening has a different philosophy or strategy and of course most of the time these strategies have many layers to them. The french is about pawn chains, closed positions, wing play, and central play too. The QG is about trying to get a superiority in the center, or for white, maybe to open the c file at the right moment. The nimzo indian to indirectly put pressure on the center and to exchange bishop for knight to get more control of the center (since the c3 knight controlled e4 and d5) and in many cases work against the doubled pawns by closing the positions, thus making the knights better. The list just goes on, and on, and on.

Like I said, I think the endgame is important, perhaps more so than openings, but it seems that learning it only helped with endgames, and being able to keep in mind if in a middlegame position will I have a favorable endgame if pieces trade off. I'm just saying learning opening strategy has its merits, and it's helped me so much.

I found that when I started studying openings, my game improved quite a bit.  i think this was because my opening knowledge was weak compared with my middle and endgame skills.  Studying some openings gave me better positions with more tactics to exploit with my current level of skill.

However, I think endgames are far a lot more important.  Here's why.

Studying endgames gives a player a fundamental understanding of their peices.  You might never reach KBB vs K but, you might end up trapping someone's queen or rook in the middle game using techniques from that endgame.

Knowing endgames, allows a player to make decisions in the middlegame that they otherwise might not have considered.  For example, I have had instances where I traded a queen for a rook or a rook for a bishop just so I could get the last peices off the board and go straight into a winnable King+Pawn endgame.  As far as I see, endgames are the beginner's introduction to strategic chess. 

Beginners should understand why trading pawns is better than trading peices when down in material.  Beginners who know the endgame will draw or win more positions that they may have lost without the knowledge.  Knowing that a king and two knights cannot force checkmate can lead a player to seek a drawn position where it might have seemed hopeless if they relied only on point count.

My chess improved a lot when I discovered that I could find a tactic that won a peice and then trade trade trade into a winning endgame.  As a Chess game progresses, the player with superior endgame knowledge is moving toward his strength, whereas the person who focuses mainly on openings is becoming weaker as the game progresses.

I think that tactics should be number one, but I think that a player should begin learning endgames right from the start.  That way, when they get that rare opportunity to reach an endgame, they don't have to watch their advantage disappear due to lack of understanding.

I think to sum up what I think I'll say study everything, including openings. Having good opening knowledge at most levels is almost optional even, but that doesn't mean it won't be useful, and at the same time it improves your understanding of the game, and gets you familiar with middlegame plans you are likely to face. I find that nowadays when I get an opening advantage I really appreciate it and am in firm command of the game, because the plans I make can always be active. That's because I know why I'm better, and can dream up a plan of how to continue, and then combine that with tactics.

As mentioned, my experience has been quite different.

Just know everything about all things...got it.

What order though?

Endgame

I suspect many things I would have learned about the middlegame in the ending, I already learned in middlegame study itself, because I study that a lot more.

Proceed with the one that will give you the most benefit if you study it, i.e. your worst weakness, taking into account the time/effort required to study it or to fix the weakness.

There is different approach tho, based on your objective, do you want to have steady improvement or do you want to invest for future growth.

For example, I study tactics, combination, playing gambit, neglecting opening theory, playing 1.e4, all of which has giving me bad performance for more than a year now, but I do it for future improvement.

Spend less time debating what to study first, and spend the time actually studying instead. As long as you're doing serious study, and vary it from time to time instead of focusing on one area too much, you'll improve.

This makes a lot of sense, actually.

For me, strangely, my worst mistakes seem to be in the opening, And against players of my own strength, I win some endings I really shouldn't.

A lot of the people I play with don't really know what they are doing in the opening.

Opening knowledge is important as it allows you to make it to the middle and then the end game.  But opening knowledge is also about understanding the ideas, and principles of each opening. 

End game knowledge is pretty much an exact science. 

Understanding the principles of the Englisch opening is very important, but you certainly better understand rook and pawn endings down to the last pawn and which file it is on to know whether its a draw or a win.

I think a good defense in the opening and a powerful attack in the endgame is important.

"Play the opening like a book, the middle game like a magician, and the endgame like a machine." - Spielmann

Since I can't do any of those things, I work on all three. As I said earlier, quantity of study, and varying it up, will produce better results than focusing excessively on any one area.

Very true. I just think there is no reason to get lazy and say "I don't need to study this!".

I like this answer, even though I have no idea what I am doing in the opening (, middlegame, or endgame).

Actually, middlegame is about who is really the better player, in my opinion.

Endgame>Opening if you have the ability to go there without a relatively large advantage on one side.

Opening>Endgame if you are a amatuer. Of course, you don't usually understand but just memorize in that situation