Casual_Joe wrote:
I'm finding that I really don't enjoy that part of the game.
David Janowski use to hate endgames too he told Capablanca that he destested them.
I hate endgames
Sort:
TKACHS wrote:
The endgame is the fruit of good positional play. A good positional player can hold up even at material loss in the middle game to go on and steamroll a pawn or two for promotion and dazzle a "tactical" player who's now frozen in his tracks with his rooks and queen.
If a tactical player is too lazy to work endgames, he might as well take up checkers!
1-There is no such thing as a "positional" player or a "tactical" player.
2-The really hard endgames are what one would call "tactical". When it is an obvious win or draw, simple concepts might be enough, but in real hard-fought endgame calculation is a huge part of the thinking process.
Chess, to me, is about creativity. That's why I enjoy playing it. Endgames are about experience. It's like doing problems out of my calculus textbook - the more I do, the better I get. That's where the line is drawn.
It turns me off when chess becomes about who's put in more hours out of their life into playing a boardgame, for the 6 thrilling seconds of feeling victorious after you beat someone who's played or studied less than you have. That's pathetic.
The opening and middle games are where the raw creative art lies in the boardgame. Endgames are boring and mechanical; winning an endgame, sincerely, gives me no pleasure. It's like a body builder feeling victorious about lifting heavier weights, than a casual gym-goer lol
http://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-diagram-generator.php
What's the difference? They are making of it an insurmountable problem when in reality it's not.
Javan64 wrote:
Good quote.
There's an old saying that goes something like, "those who study openings learn openings, while those who study endgames learn chess!"
I also hate endgames. Unfortunately I hate the opening and the middle game as well...
Casual_Joe wrote:
I don't often have to play a real, hardcore endgame. Usually one side or the other resigns before then. Occasionally I do have to play a long, complicated endgame. I'm finding that I really don't enjoy that part of the game. Maybe it's because it seems mysterious -- lots of subtle moves that I don't understand.
Anyone else hate endgames?
I detest the endgame. A well-played game should be practically decided in the middlegame. ~ chess quote by David Janowski
You are not alone . 
My last OTB game had errors on both sides. At one point in the middle game, I was so angry at my play that people in the room could see my fury. We reached an ending where I had a rook to my opponent's knight and we each had three pawns.
My good spirits returned. My fury concerning my own play diminished. Chess was again a joy. Pawns were exchanged. One of his made it one square from promotion. I gave him a choice of trading it for mine, or queening first, but letting me queen with check. Eventually, I had the only pawn and still rook against knight. Again my opponent had a choice: move the knight far from his king, where perhaps my rook and king could trap it, or let me exchange my rook for the knight to reach a winning pawn ending. He allowed the exchange, and naturally I had an only move with my king to assure the win.
Endings are the reason I play chess.
A critical position from the game described above: http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2016/05/rook-versus-knight.html
repossession hat geschrieben:
"Maybe it's because it seems mysterious -- lots of subtle moves that I don't understand." I suspect one would cite the same reasons for liking endgames.
I do not think this is very helpful AT ALL.
Drive for show, putt for dough. That’s a golf cliché, but chess has an equivalent concept. Openings are flashy; middlegame combinations are sexy; endgames win championships.
Ultimate-trashtalker wrote:
Wow. Seven years later u still here
I’ve been on this site since late 2007. Rarely does a week go by that I’m not here.
Ziryab wrote:
Drive for show, putt for dough. That’s a golf cliché, but chess has an equivalent concept. Openings are flashy; middlegame combinations are sexy; endgames win championships.
Jesus Christ that’s a lot of books. How much did that even cost?
liev_frieordie wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Drive for show, putt for dough. That’s a golf cliché, but chess has an equivalent concept. Openings are flashy; middlegame combinations are sexy; endgames win championships.
Jesus Christ that’s a lot of books. How much did that even cost?
There’s another shelf partially filled with endgames.
I have no idea the cost. Many were purchased used. I’ve had some of the books since the 1970s. The Averbakh set, recently expanded from one volume to all eight, cost from $15 to $40 each. Those harder to find cost more. I bought four or five of them from the same guy whom I know through the Chess Book Collectors group on Facebook. He also sold me three other books in the first photo.
Also a book I bought about 2001. It was $30 and I got free shipping because it was part of an order that was over $100.
Well, every endgame has its own character. That character is determined by the pieces still on the board. Not by the pawns.
An endgame Queen versus queen has its own character. Knight versus Bisshop has a different character. And two bisshops against a knight and a bisshop has another character. And so on.
All these typical endgames you can find in the books and on the Internet. Read about these different characters, try to understand them and you will know how to play your endgames. That´s really learning to play chess. Studying this item will enable you to reach a winning endgame from the middlegame. And to win it.
Understandig this items will give you the pleasure and satisfaction in playing endgames that you´re now missing.