If You Could Only Study One . . .
Sort:
I think more about pawn endgames.
Players of all levels reach endgames that they don't know what to do with, whether they are won, lost, or equal. A novice playing against a novice has a shot of winning just about any endgame that's reached.
During the middle game, the advantage swings back and forth quite largely in games played by novices. A knowledge in the endgame allows you to actually win a game. Whereas knowledge in the middle game allows you to achieve a winning position that is almost always going to be frittered away.
Even though I'm only an amateur even I can see benefit in the old saw, "Endgames teach you chess." I think a solid endgame knowledge also helps you win more games, but maybe that's just me.
Endgames. Its been stated by GMs e.g. Karpov. Ulf Andersson recommended 'learning chess backwards' - endgame-middlegame-opening. Endgame shows you the true relative power of the pieces and different pawns , central, passed, protected etc. Plus tactical elements in their purest form. Loomis's comment above is correct. Also, there have been a number of opening ideas worked out where one side aims to simplify to a better/equal endgame from the start. I.e. the middlegame doesnt exist as such so knowledge of that one opening plus lots of general good endgame play should do.
The most important advice to a beginner in playing endgames? USE YOUR KING!! The second most important? PASSED PAWNS MUST BE PUSHED!! Its amazing just how many games that apparently obvious advice will win you. 
People who have played the game for awhile may find it easy to say 'study the endgame; that's where you'll win', but I wonder if that's because those players already feel comfortable with the opening positions and middlegame tactics, and the endgame is where they feel their own shortcomings. Thus they reccommend that study to beginnners. Have they perhaps forgotten what it is like to not know any openings and just push any of the pieces at random? Have they forgotten the time when they didn't know a pin or a skewer or a fork? Don't get me wrong; I'm not diminishing the importance of the endgame. I just think knowing what a fork is and how to look for one (giving and receiving) is more important than being able to calculate the pawn squared rule.
Ender, I don't think anyone suggests to study the endgame at the full expense of everything else. You have to learn enough about moving the pieces in the opening and middle game to play chess at some level. Whatever level that is, learning basic endgames will teach you to finish off your opponent who also plays at that level as well as teach you how a chess game is won.
The typical beginning player doesn't know how to use a lead in development or better control of the center, so studying openings won't gain them much. While it's nice to know basic tactics, novice players give away their pieces for free in extremely simple ways -- often just leaving them out for the taking! So it doesn't take an in depth study of combinational motifs to play a passable game.
Jan 22, 2008
0
#8
Here is my personal interpretation of the advice : study all phases of the game, but backward, ie. :
- start with a lesson on how to mate with K+Q vs. K (1hr) + practice - it helps develop at least 2 very important skills : board visualization and pieces coordination + you understand what you're aiming at...
- then try to learn a new tactic, ex. pawn fork, then practice with some exercises (1hr)
- then learn about basic opening principles and how they apply in one very basic opening (1hr)
- then go playing ! (6 hrs)
and go again, starting with another basic endgame...
If you're really lost, you may want to give Chess Mentor -adaptive mode - a try 
Loomis wrote:
The typical beginning player doesn't know how to use a lead in development or better control of the center, so studying openings won't gain them much. While it's nice to know basic tactics, novice players give away their pieces for free in extremely simple ways -- often just leaving them out for the taking!
Loomis, I completely agree with your earlier points, and you're right; I don't think any true chess tutor worth their salt would suggest that someone study the endgame at the expense of completely ignoring the opening and the middlegame. You are also completely right that a beginner has no concept of what to do with an advantage in space or how gaining a tempo or five is worth anything at all; thus, opening theory is probably not the best overall investment either.
My point is only this; the author I question suggested 'If you could study only one . . ." and then went on to defend the endgame. I think I actually support the middlegame tactics myself, again, if you could study only one. You yourself point out that many novices give their pieces away for free. You can lose a game with all your pieces on the board, it's true, but that's still technically middlegame, then, and I think that for novices the advantage definitely goes to the player with the most material. Learning immaginitive middlegame tactics, learning to lure and sacrifice, to seemingly offer something and then take something else more valuable, to pin, skewer, and fork your way to material advantage. . . all of this seems more valuable to the novice who can study only one aspect. Imagine how valuable it would be for the beginner to learn how not to give away his pieces for free while learning to take his opponents freebies at the same time. I know you can't win without checkmate, but it's a lot easier to stumble onto checkmate when you've got 20 points on the board to your opponents 6; am I wrong?
Good job. 14 years & 3.5 months might be the bump record. I think I saw some at 12 or 13 years. I might try to find a really old one & type bump in real tiny letters.
May 13, 2022
0
#13
Fire wrote:
beginner will proballyl never make it to the endgame
I coach beginners. The endgames they reach are one-sided and still end as draws when they do not know how to checkmate.
Depends on what you mean by studying endgames.
There's no point in teaching Lucena to a beginner before teaching simpler endgame concepts. But basic checkmating patterns like King and Rook vs King is a must.
It's all about balance.
The endgame is the only phase that can be taught exactly.
The middle game is a matter of style. Two grandmasters play the same position differently.
The opening is a matter of fashion. What was bad yesterday is good today and will be bad tomorrow.
It makes much more sense to teach Lucena to a beginner than to teach him the Najdorf.
“In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before everything else, for whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middle game and the opening must be studied in relation to the endgame.” - Capablanca
I recently read a book that served as only an introduction to many of the intricacies of chess. It did reference many other good resources, and it made a curious statement that I found surprising. While discussing the reletive differences and importance of the opening, the middlegame, and the endgame, the author suggested that if a chess novice had time to study only one of these aspects that they would be best served to study the endgame.
I'm not sure that I agree. It is true that memorizing hundreds of moves to form a strong opening won't guarentee success if you don't know what to do when you get it. It is also true that studying strong tactics to produce an immaginitive and deadly middlegame can't always salvage a poor position or finish a strong opponent either. I still wonder, though, if a thorough knowledge of the endgame is really the best study for a beginning chess player. I can't help but think that without a good idea of how to get to an endgame with a shot at winning, you should maybe study other areas first. What do you think?