Study Opening vs Middle vs Endgame

Commonly debated topic.  I previously thought studying the Endgame was of most importance to an up and coming player, but I've retracted from that belief in favor of studying Openings.  With a decent opening book, such as Modern Chess Openings, the player is exposed to a large amount of algebraic notation, which will inevitably become part of his psyche after going through an enormous number of variations.  The opening's intentions are also taught to help the player learn what the actual opening is about.  As a side effect of this the player learns about the concept of controlling squares and using them as a means of a more far reaching strategical plan than simply direct attacks on individual pieces.  In addition to this, it allows the player to successfully reach a reasonable middle game with more experienced players, who tend to follow opening theory much more.

Memorizing openings (not mindlessly, but wisely) also allows the individual to identify with other's games ("He played the Budapest Gambit") much more quickly and gives a general idea of the initial flow of the game.  Being able to identify an opening name and matching the corresponding algebraic notation becomes much easier because it's essentially a way for memorizing a vast number of openings.  The opening name becomes a sort of mnemonic (which explains why even GM's use the name instead of the ECO table).  This mnemonic becomes the "memory tree trunk" of sorts which with experience branches out further and further, enabling even more identification and memorization.  Because of all this, you become much more familiar with algebraic notation as a result and it allows you to more easily understand other concepts or lectures from more experienced players, ie you can keep up with them on the display board.

Experiencing all of this will make the inevitable middle and possibly the endgame much less painful and more manageable, since all games must have an opening, but all games might not have an endgame.  Above all else experience is required but I think the good starting point is the study of openings and the full understanding of their ideas.

Words of agreement?

Words of dissent? :)

Show me the games that you won or lost based on the small edges that come from superior openings, and I'll agree that it's best for you to study openings. But very few players below the highest levels have those games consistently.

Studying MCO might be the worst possible way of studying chess, with the intent of improving.

Going through books as Mastering the chess openings though, is undoubtedly helpful, largely because the books are teaching you openings and the middlegame at the same time.

In fact, if you spend 3months reading MCO, and I spend 3 months doing this;

I would probably still show more improvement than you.

They're not exclusive.  I'm not saying "First learn algebraic notation, then learn openings", I'm saying the inevitable result of studying openings and their variations will give you the experience one needs to obtain algebraic notation skills.  This isn't mindlessly memorizing openings more so as a study of openings and their general principles, which will also help you in studying master games.  The game is based on pattern recognition, I think that can go without saying.  A key part of learning is to be able to visualize an idea and work off of it.  Knowing an opening(s) means you can visualize it's idea and can work off it.  Playing the French defense implies immediately for example that the center will likely be closed off and there will be play on the wings, while also having a slight space advantage for white, atleast early on.  Knowing this you can work off that and through experience can therefore apply ideas based off your "French Defense" template.  Ofcourse at lower ratings you're going to get into tactical melees regardless and people aren't going to simply oblige by an opening your practicing, so it's an opportunity all itself to practice those essential skills.

I don't care how many times a beginner reads MCO, he still won't understand that this game is about controll of the d5 square.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aedY6zEcn1A

(I hope I linked to the right game now, I just remembered watching a game by Kramnik on youtube, not sure if this is the correct one, and I cba to watch through it right now.)

MCO is a reference book. You cannot "read" it anymore than you can read a dictionary. You can study it and try to commit opening lines to memory but if you dont understand the underlying ideas it will be a pretty wasted effort as you will quickly forget and get confused. Ofcourse , if you have some sort of photographic memory you might can simply memorize the lines....... then when the middlegame is reached you will be at a loss as to how to continue if you dont understand the positions reached...... 

That's the point i'm trying to make, and actually the analogy is perfect.  You can memorize a dictionary, but if you don't understand what the words mean what's the point?  You can memorize openings, but if you don't understand what it's "words" mean, what's the point?  Anyway what I'm saying has been explained in my first and second posts.

It's scary -- I had the exact same thoughts you did at a time -- in fact I made a thread very similar to this in my early days here.

It's all good on paper, and certainly not a terrible method -- you are learning chess as you are with the opening after all -- but fundamentals should come first (i.e. tactics and endgames). The problem that comes in when you start with good positions but have insufficient tactical and endgame practice is that even if you start with a good position and proceed to outplay your opponent, they still have decent chances of winning just by waiting for you to make the slightest tactical error; or capitalize on inferior endgame technique, especially if time pressure is involved. It was not uncommon for me to lose or draw in just this fashion: I'd outplay my opponent for 50 moves, then blow it in just a few moves. You need the basics because an inferior understanding of the basics results in the most dire of consequences -- losing a whole piece to a simple fork for example: if at any point -- any point -- you allow this, all your hard work was for nothing.

Of course, I won many games too -- it's just that the games I lost were almost solely because of my half-assed understanding of the essentials, leading to many, superfluous, losses.

The reason for endings is basically for "just in case": you won't always need advanced endgame concepts, but there are plenty of games you will end up screwing up because of it, and worse of all, if you lack endgame confidence, you won't be able to succeed by "trading into a winning endgame" if you can't actually win that position. Moreover, the evaluation of a position's long term merits can be based on potential endgames that can arise. So it's just nice to have this kind of knowledge to lean back on, and not to have to worry when an endgame is called for.

At the very least, an amateur can avoid many opening traps and put the game in equally unfamiliar territory against similar and slightly higher-rated opponents and get a better chance of winning since their opponent who memorizes several traps will no longer be able to artificially play at a 2650 level.

Endgames must always come first. Endgames have the simplest elements which make up the rest of the game. Studying openings before endgames is similar to taking Spanish IV before Spanish I. Middlegames are generally most useful to study once you've already done endgames. As for openings, until you get at least 1400+, it's better just to learn principles than memorizing lines.

The purpose of any opening is to reach a playable middlegame, nothing more, nothing less. Whatever advantage White or Black gets out of an opening can be erased in a heartbeat because of a tactic, or over a few more moves if one does not have a plan on how to proceed in the middlegame. Ya gotta have a plan or, you are just a woodpusher.

I enjoy studying opening theory, but in my games, it's just not practical to spend time memorizing main lines past a few moves, since things go out of book quickly. Then, I am on my own in search of a plan.

I feel the same way about all chess games having a opening and not all of them having a ending and I'm proud to study the openings myself since I don't have much trouble with tactics anyway I don't see a reason to study it indepth and since at my level not all games go into the endgame to me openings are essential to get to the next level. Capablanca got far without studying anything so when people say it's critical to study this or that it really and all ways ha depended on you. Philidor never studied anyhting nor lucenea or palo and alot of anient masters yet alll this study originates from them.

Not exactly. You don't need to actually get to an endgame in order for endgame knowledge to have a profound effect on the game.

Basically, every middlegame needs to be looked at as "If we traded down, who would the endgame favor?" If you don't know which endgames are winning, which are drawn and which are losing, you can't know if trading down is good for your or not, and that's a pretty huge part of middlegame planning.

I have bolded the part where I indeed touched on your point.