Study openings or endgames?

Even if you play endings like Smyslov if you lose a piece in the opening or get mated in the middlegame it will do you no good . I reached NM by spending most of my study time on middlegames/tactics and openings , I did study basic endings but didnt need to study endings deeply until I was playing in open sections and regularly facing titled players . Examine your most recent serious losses ... are you losing in the opening , middlegame , or endings ? Maybe you are losing due to weak tactics ? Work on that phase of the game that is your weakest phase , this doesnt mean you should ignore the other phases of chess , only that you should put extra time/effort into your biggest weakness .... 

You might lose in the middlegame due to an opening mistake.

You might make poor opening choices due to not understanding the middlegame.

Same for the endgame. You can make poor choices in the middlegame because you didn't realize certain endgames were wins or draws.

Of course if you play for mate every game like a caveman, and either you or your opponent is completely winning by move 20, then it wont really matter.

Yup, I gave the same advice. 

It's good to see you back again, @Reb!

you should learn both,but I feel endgame learning is better

My first USCF rated tournament game I was playing a guy who was 1800+. I held my own but was a pawn down. At one point I had a chance to enter a R and Pawns vs Rook and Pawns with him up one pawn. I didn't go into it, because I wasn't aware of how drawish that particular endgame was.

I ended up losing.

Now days I look at that game and just shake my head. At very least I could have made that game way way more difficult for him to win.

I won my first open tournament when, going into the last round, four players had a perfect score. I was on board one, rated 1899, against a National Master. On board two, a 19xx rated Expert was facing another National Master. Both A players reached the Lucena position. One of us knew it and won clear first. The other didn't and tied for second-third. That one piece of information was the difference of ~$300. (Yeah, I know Chess really doesn't pay.)

So, if a single piece of chess knowledge can show up on two boards next to each other at the end of a tournament, I'd say it's useful knowledge. But don't believe me, believe all the chess coaches and authors who consider it to be one of the most important positions to learn in all of chess! Lasker, Nimzowitsch, Casablanca, and all the rest all believe this is essential knowledge.

The Philidor and Lucena Positions are two endgames that every chess player who wants to be even slightly competitive as a club player should learn.

And if those players had followed the Silman program they would have learned about Lucena in the 1400-1599 section.

I should clarify. On board two, the guy rated 19xx had been +2000, and would be again after the tournament. Everyone considered him an expert even when his rating dipped below 2000.

From this thread, do you have a quote of a specific sentence asserting that these positions never happen in games?

Rook endgame concepts like checking distance,frontal defense and back rank defense are also essential endgame knowledge.

I had this twice but I had the king! In the first game the guy said it is a draw, I said it is not, but it is difficult if he doesn't know the technique. He didn't agree with we and proposed to change the side. I was learning this in this time and won easily, also because the guy went always straight to the side I could not mate him (this was the easy variation, the more complicated I was not sure if I could remember the technique). 

In the second game, I am not sure if a rapid or blitz, the guy was trying to solve the problem on the board. He didn't know the w-route with the knight. Draw after 50 moves.

Once I was the strong side with K, B, N vs K, but we had some pawns on the queenside. This was a funny thing, as I had really to focus in not allow stalemate. I won.

"... that [positions never-happen sentence] was a general statement not specific to anything I've seen said in this threat. …" - BobbyTalparov (~52 minutes ago)

"... The original post is written by a new player ..." - BobbyTalparov (~5 days ago)

I just noticed that autocorrect on my wife’s iPad changes Capablanca to Casablanca. Sorry about that!

"... A sigh is just a sigh. …"

For an idea of what Capablanca had in mind for a beginner, one might look at A Primer of Chess. For Lasker, one might try How to Play Chess.

I am going throw Dvotetsky's Endgame Manual, the chapters on rooks. Lucena I learned already several years ago, but there are sooooooo many positions / techniques you have to know...

I didn't have many rook endgames in my own games, I don't know why. 

http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/the-end-game-comes-before-we-know-it

Watson:

"You can see the incredible detail that Dvoretsky goes into and his continual search for truth that leads to new or amended conclusions. This is an ultra-high-quality book. But is most of this particularly valuable for players up to 2200, or even 2400? Sure, a thorough study of each example would definitely improve one's understanding, but that's true for any complex position from any book. Perhaps the most accurate conclusion is that the stronger you are the more you will get from DEM. In my own teaching to average players I am still using Mueller and Lamprecht's Fundamental Chess Endings, which has a wonderful balance between Encyclopaedic coverage (I can find almost anything), examples that can be shortened at most points, and clear explanations that bring together endings of the same sort. To me it provides a simpler method for giving students both information and a sense of why they are proceeding as they are. In either case, it seems to me, a teacher's guidance is preferable, but lacking it I would like to see students learning the fundamentals in a systematic and comprehensible way."

Of course the book is difficult. I did chose to work with it (instead of Müller / Lamprecht) because I can learn it in Chessable. It makes things much more easier if you can regularly see things that you are doing wrong (so you can invest more time in learning this specific stuff) and if you can learn using spaced repetition. B

By reviewing using spaced repetition the task to go through the whole book is less intimidating than going through the physical book (which is intimidating!). I usually stand up in the morning, review 40 or 50 exercises from the book, than I learn a couple more of positions, then  in the afternoon or in the evening I go through the new positions again. It need times to go through the whole book, but doing it regularly and at a daily basis it is absolutely feasible.  I learned only 86 from the 1234 variations.  I guess in one week I will have learned at least 10% of the book.

You just hired a GM for a coach. Follow your coach's advice. Don't follow any advice from the internet. Respect your coach.

Hiring a coach is a great idea for anyone who wants to be competitive in chess. 

When you hire the coach, you make a compact that you will follow his or her advice. Don't go looking for advice from the internet. 

Respect the coach!