If you had to choose one: opening theory or endgame technique?

Hey everyone! As part of my Winter Blunderland series on Youtube, I am posting a question every day in December. Today's question: If you had to choose one: opening theory or endgame technique?

For me, it used to be opening theory, but since I've almost graduated out of blundering in the first 10 moves I will DEFINITELY say that I would choose endgame technique

end game they are more fun and its chill

End game definitely!

I would choose the end game; openings don't matter if you don't know endgame technique!

Oh yeah!!! I was always about the opening theory because when you learn that you see obvious returns whereas the endgame is much more subtle because you can bang your head against that for ages and still not get it... Still I would choose the endgame

Opening theory for sure. Every game of chess has a beginning, but not all have an end.

1000% endgame technique!

endgame

Focus on endgames. You're currently better at the opening than the endgame.

100% endgames, you already know enough to get to the middle game without making major mistakes. Your engame skills are much more of a weakness at the moment.

I don't enjoy studying either but I think openings would be far more beneficial than endgames.

Playing poorly in the opening can lead to worse positions in the middle game, which will end up giving the opponent a clear advantage in the middle or end game (bad opening most likely mean you lose).

On the other hand, outplaying your opponent in the opening means you have an easy job for the rest of the game. Of course this probably only applies from 2000 up to 2400, where openings can usually decide games.

I'd like to know endgames well. I have a rather poor track record with them.

My last two games went to endgame. The first one was completely winning (5 points in my favor) when it started, so it wasn't really a fight. I whittled it down to a bare king vs. a king and queen, and that was it.

On the second one I apparently had a decent advantage, but I blew it. It would have been a draw if not for my opponent blundering and me accidentally playing the correct counter-move, giving me an unstoppable pawn. Most other endgames tend to go horribly for me, or only end with me winning because my opponent made a huge blunder.

My openings tend to be subpar, but endgames really kill me more than anything.

There are lots of opportunities to fight back in a losing middlegame. But in a losing endgame? Not so much.

openings because if you can gain an advantage in the opening the endgame will be easier

I would choose endgame techniques: most of the time, they can help you to win or to draw some difficult positions.

I would say endgame technique too! Opening theory is interesting, and it will position you well early in the game, but knowing how to turn a winning endgame or holding up one that is difficult will usually seal the deal

Endgame technique at this point. Basic opening theory is flexible; you just have to control the center, develop your pieces, and not overtly blunder while you're doing it. Endgame techniques are kind of "set in stone." You can't really freestyle specific endgames and consistently win.

I don't really care about openings so, I go with endgame

End game for me. Too novice to focus on 10+ deep opening moves. Just getting mate in 3 consistently is still work for me.

For most players, endgame technique is the better long-term investment. While openings give you short-term gains, endgame skills apply universally and improve your understanding of chess overall.

Exactly. Openings are the foundation. A poor foundation is going to result in a poor game. Someone who doesn't play openings well doesn't have to worry about endgames. They will just resign before it gets that far.