Endgame vs Opening

I believe you (even though endgames haven't helped me terribly in other phases, but of course I don't study it that much so maybe that's why), but I hope you're not saying the way you're studying is necessary to improve a good deal, because that's not how I improved.

In non technical endgame positions, when it's calm (lets say there's a minor piece or two on either side and a rook and at least 5 pawns), I often can use my positional knowledge and form a long term plan based on what I already know about a queenside attack in a middlegame, with a few changes like activating my king. Also I'd be familiar with gaining space and advancing pawns to create weaknesses.

i like the endgame because it has more open spots for my peices.

plus, i can move my pawns up and get queens or other pieces of the set!

the opening just gets into nowhere with my games. it's like there's no where to go! all the spaces are used up and everything gets too clogged up.

what is best opening or endgame? i find it alot like asking what is best? a car or gasoline? completely useless apart from eachother but great together

Well put.

Not really, if you study the endgame and know it well, it boosts your opening skills and you won't need to memorize openings that much. Plus, the real question is: Is it more important to study the endgame or memorize the openings? That's what the question means. 

Endgames being more important wouldn't mean that openings should be ignored. I think it's possible to get to 2000 without a particularly strong knowledge of openings, but nevertheless it was, for me, an excellent improving tool as thematic opening games often cover the opening, middlegame resulting from it, and often endgames where most advantages are realized at GM level.

"... if you study the endgame and know it well, it boosts your opening skills and you won't need to memorize openings that much."

I find this statement really hard to believe.

"Plus, the real question is: Is it more important to study the endgame or memorize the openings? That's what the question means."

This statement is more believable. And the answer is yes, both are important if you want to improve.

i couldnt agree more. if you dont know a single move of openingtheory, development and tempo and such you will get blown away in 20 moves so you have to know basic of openings and the ideas. but its a waste of time trying to learn all lines. at the same time its useless to spend to much time on endgames trying to learn how to win endgames with triple apawns and stuff like that.

I find that the endgame is more important, and so I work on that more. I find that more games are decided by the endgame then the opening.

 Hmmmmmmmm .... so if I had concentrated on endings I might be stuck at 1400 ?!

Ok, you can be stuck at 2400 while Capablanca, an endgame genius, was World Champion for six years.

 No world champion is weak in any phase of chess and the great among them are superb in all 3 phases. My point is that all 3 phases of chess are equally important.

Any chess position consists of a number of relationships between opposing pieces which can be defined as endgame situations. As you progress from the first move, the number of these relationships increases, until you have a very large number in the middle-game. As pieces are exchanged, the game is reduced to a very few.

Instead of thinking of them as relevant to the endgame only, it's probably more useful to consider them always present, from the first move onwards.

This is what Capablanca wanted us to understand. By becoming deft at recognizing and manipulating these relationships, as exemplified by what we term endgame problems, we would recognize them through all stages of the game, and know how to exploit them, regardless of when we encounter them.

It's how Capablanca was able to have a ten year winning streak ...  Pretty obvious, once you begin thinking of it that way. You just have to pick the most effective endgame problem, at any stage of the game, to press local wins in the more complex positional landscape.

Drive for show; putt for dough.

 He had an unbeaten streak , not a winning streak. And his 10 year unbeaten record was broken by Tal who did it in 2 years because back then they didnt play many games per year.

If you play a good opening taking a lot of pieces in exchange for very little then it does not really matter what endgame your opponent plays . However if you this can be successfully used only by people with strong openings[very few ,less than the number of GMs].I mean if it is a war and you lose a few weapons while destroying a lot of enemy ammunition and forts you will easily win. This is true in chess too.

Though if the analogy above holds, Capa saw the game as a collection of putts, no drives.

An amateur armed with a sharp tactical line can often do a lot of damage in the opening or the early middlegame if you don't know the line. Even if they just win a piece, that will be usually be enough for a decent player to convert. The other day I walked into a trappy line and lost a piece in the opening. Luckily my opponent got relaxed and allowed a counterattack, so after a long and hard game I barely managed to save a draw. That is certainly not how I would like to play on daily basis, and I will certainly make sure that I know that opening line from now on even if I don't use it myself.

It is also possible to reach 2000 without solid endgame knowlege aswell but it is quite questionable if it's the easiest/fastest/smartest way. I think everyones chess improves faster if they work on all phases, beginning with their weakest link.