opening or endgame

If you are losing in the openings and/or middlegames you can study endings until you are as good as Smyslov or Capablanca and it won't do you any good. When I started playing chess I was losing in the openings and middlegames. If I got to an ending I was usually a minor piece down or 2 or 3 pawns so my opponent just did the "mopping up" in the ending but I actually lost the game earlier. I made NM without spending much time on endings ( yes I did study basic endings ) and the majority of my games were decided in the middlegames .  My advice is that IF you are reaching endings ( that arent lost already ) and being outplayed in them or have no idea what to do then yes, spend more time on those endings. Look at your last 10 losses objectively.  Where did you "lose" the game ? Lets say you lost 2 in the opening because you fell into traps you didnt know and lets say you blew 3 endings due to lack of ending skill/knowledge but you lost 5 in the middlegames due to tactical oversights or poor defensive skills. Where do you think should be worked on first/most ?  It doesnt take a genius to see where I am going here.... 

I detest the endgame. A well-played game should be practically decided in the middlegame.  -  David Janowski

LOL 

I believe I am more like Janowski than Capablanca.... 

That says it all !! the fact of the matter is that most of us class players are getting to these endgames with some damage when we are playing really strong opponents. if you openings are solid you must play to WIN the middlegame and gain an advantage no matter how small, your stronger opponent will be more reluctent to even enter the endgame phase which is their strenght . MAKE him play on your turff  not his !!

Well hold on a second... if someone keeps losing the middlegame would it be fair to have a look at their opening prep?  They may be playing into bad positions without realizing it e.g. they're thinking "this opening is fine, my position is good" but then a few moves into the middlegame they're wondering what happened.

Studying the endgame will help your middlegame... it can't help but to help it.  Positions that you thought were drawn or losing in the middlegame will have new possibilities you didn't know about and you won't have to win a few pawns or a piece to feel confident about the latter part of the game.

There's a lot to be said for developing a good plan or bad plan.  If I lose because of tactics or poor defensive skills and hand my score sheet over to a master they may say, well instead of attacking you had a completely solid plan of trading off the heavies and setting your pawns like this for an advantageous endgame.  But because I didn't know the endgame I set about a bad plan.

Yeah I lost with a tactic, but the real problem was not understanding the position, or more specifically, the endgame possibilities.

I do see what you're saying, and it makes sense, but it's not so cut and dry.  Especially if you're asking the class player to decide what phase they "lost" because of... just like the player who assumed he lost in the middlegame when he unwittingly mixed two systems in the opening he's not going to know what he doesn't know, and the problem may come from the phase before or the phase after.

The point is that all phases are important if you want to improve. The first thing a student of the game should do is determine where they are weakest and work on eliminating that weakness. When they have done that then go to the next weakness, work on that one... etc. I really think its a waste of time for someone to study complex endings ( I am not talking about basic endings here ) when they are losing most of their games before an ending is reached.  Every game of chess has an opening and if both players survive the opening then you have a middlegame, and if the two players reach an ending which isnt lost already then they have an ending. Among amateurs the majority of decisive games are decided in the middlegame. One needs to realize where their weaknesses are and work on their weakest area first. If you are getting bad positions from the openings you simply must work on openings especially since the opening phase comes first. 

I say endgames are overated.-THe opening is where u can make mistakes that last.

i also say that endgames only matter when they're in a drawish position.

U cant prove me wrong!!!!!!!!!!

This makes sense.  :)

u cant prove me wrong!!!!!!!!

I would agree the foundation of the games are formed in the opening  but with so many players so book savy it is difficult to gain a meaningful advantage in the openings against strong players . I would rather complicate and take my chances in the middlegame you have just as good a chance at finding that  killer tactic/combo as your stronger opponent does . !!

thanks for all the comments

interesting opinion

I've said this in other threads, but it is more apporpriate here.  

An NM coach (with 40+ years scholastic/adult coaching experience) told me that he thought if beginners simply took 3-6 months to learn a solid opening repertoire, this would be the best thing they could do to facilitate their learning of tactics, endgames, strategy, and the opening, learn from GM games, and help them improve their chess playing strength as fast as their talent, time, and work will allow, even if the beginner did ZERO tactics, strategy, or endgames while memorizing their repertoire.  After you have your opening downpat, then you can drill tactics/endgames and study strategy/positional play.  But you have to get rid of the glaring holes that will immediately cost you most of your games in the first 10-15 moves.