And also an endgame section. Is it there being advocated that one only study endgames?
And also an endgame section. Is it there being advocated that one only study endgames?
I think you will learn better if you enjoy what you are studying. So if you like endgame, there is no harm at studying them.
Endgame helps you understand chess better but there is problem.
No beer allowed! Can you do that?
Good one...
To study the endgame is to study chess. Learning to maneuver your pieces is far easier with only a few left on the board and doing so helps you see how the pieces work together, how they interact with each other, as well as how to find the plan in a given position. Less pieces on the board equates to less complicated positions, less options. You can get a better grip on the how and why of planning this way. Most games are decided in the endgame. That being said, studying the endgame will also show you which positions are winning for you and which aren't; take a look at all those positions - their structures - and you'll begin to notice what the middle game structure looked like and then, from there, what sort of opening leads to what kind of endgame. Hopefully some of you understand this and some of you can use of if you don't already know it. I can't find a better way to explain it lol
Lets be honest here. At our level, there really is no "right or wrong" way of studying. What is chess? Its a game. Treat it as such. Study whatever you enjoy studying. My take on "endgames first" comes from years of study, playing, talking to others, reading, etc. Does it really matter where you start? of course not. But there are 2 groups of kids at tournaments. Those that properly study, and those that go around "Im an agressive/tactical player" And every game lost is due to "I forogt my opening theory" or "I mixed up my opening theory" or "You didnt play the correct theory, thats why i lost" Being 54 i have played kids in the same section of tournaments, and then 6 months later they have shot past me. I have also played kids that are "tactical, and agressive", and there they are, still in the same section im in.
At the end of the day, it really doesnt matter for the vast majority of usm what, where, how you study, as long as you enjoy what you study.
"... This book is the first volume in a series of manuals designed for players who are building the foundations of their chess knowledge. The reader will receive the necessary basic knowledge in six areas of the game - tactcs, positional play, strategy, the calculation of variations, the opening and the endgame. ... To make the book entertaining and varied, I have mixed up these different areas, ..." - GM Artur Yusupov
to succeed study the endgame before anything else.
Jose Raul Capablanca.
"... if you have just learned to play, all you need to study is the section designed for beginners (Part One). After mastering the material there, put [Silman's Complete Endgame Course] away and spend your time studying tactics and a few strategic concepts, ..." - IM Jeremy Silmam (2007)
Its best to start with opening traps. Because the game will not last till endgame if you mess up in the opening or middle game.
Why bother studying the endgame if you can't get there?
Why bother studying a middle game if you can't finish it? Both are equally important.
Its best to start with opening traps. Because the game will not last till endgame if you mess up in the opening or middle game.
Yes. The 8000 game 1700 player is right. 
Its best to start with opening traps. Because the game will not last till endgame if you mess up in the opening or middle game.
Yes. The 8000 game 1700 player is right.
Jose Raul Capablanca (with his eight year streak without a loss) is correct.
Sequence of learning for beginners:
1) opening traps
2) basic checkmates and tactics
3) then, much much later, basic endgames(like king & pawn and rook endgames). I think you need to be atleast 1300 when you have to worry about endgames.
4) proper opening theory starting around 1500 rating.
The most important thing is, of course, tactics(including mating patterns).
Its best to start with opening traps. Because the game will not last till endgame if you mess up in the opening or middle game.
Yes. The 8000 game 1700 player is right.
Why are you worried about my rating? You should take care of your rating...
Sequence of learning for beginners:
1) opening traps
2) basic checkmates and tactics
3) then, much much later, basic endgames(like king & pawn and rook endgames). I think you need to be atleast 1300 when you have to worry about endgames.
4) proper opening theory starting around 1500 rating.
The most important thing is, of course, tactics(including mating patterns).
I think knowing how to physically win the game is more important than being able to play a mediocre opening. But then again, I don't have your 8700 games so who am I to give advice?
Why not study a little of both?
Also, if studying a certain aspect of the game feels difficult or "uncomfortable", it probably means that you struggle at that phase of the game—which is all the more reason to study it.
So, if I felt uncomfortable studying openings, for example, I would consider that a sign that I need to study openings more.
And also an endgame section. Is it there being advocated that one only study endgames?