studying Endgame first, or Openings.

Does it really make sense to argue about what is harder? Doesn't the issue depend on the degree of opening proficiency that one is seeking, the degree of endgame proficiency that one is seeking, the sorts of talents that one has, the sort of resources that one has, what one enjoys, etc.? Is any of this stuff quantifiable?

That ‘one defense’ becomes quickly 32, 40, 80 lines. Scheveningen amounts to over 300 lines for me. Then you have Najdorf, Ruy Lopez, or KID as the response to 1. d4. Hundreds of lines with just ‘one’ innocent defense.

In response to 93.

Does it really make sense to argue about importance in a context like this? What would you think of two people who argued about whether the gas tank or the spark plugs were more important for a car? If we had someone who had just been rescued a few days after an earthquake, should one start by providing food or water? I don't know, but if one starts with water, the person will probably need some sort of food pretty soon.

"... The game might be divided into three parts, i.e.:- 1. The opening. 2. The middle-game. 3. The end-game. There is one thing you must strive for, to be equally efficient in the three parts. Whether you are a strong or a weak player, you should try to be of equal strength in the three parts. ..." - Capablanca

troy7915 wrote: "That ‘one defense’ becomes quickly 32, 40, 80 lines. Scheveningen amounts to over 300 lines for me. Then you have Najdorf, Ruy Lopez, or KID as the response to 1. d4. Hundreds of lines with just ‘one’ innocent defense."

Well, some of us (me, for example) are never going to get to the point of trying to learn that much. Does it make much sense to worry about this if one is at the point of wondering where to start one's chess studies?

GM Neil Mcdonald is used to playing people who would've done extreme opening preparation before the game and as a result a small error can lead to a loss because if both players play extremely well, which at GM level is likely, then it could lead to a loss for positional reasons. Even though i don't know who created this thread, it was likely created by someone bellow 1600 and it's unlikely a <1600 would play someone who's revised the opening played 20 moves deep and even if it was the case it wouldn't mater because A: one player might go into a different line and the preparation was pointless or B: (more likely) the game is decided by an endgame or tactics. 

Openings only need to be known by players at a certain level.

You're right that this is not relevant but troy said openings are harder than endgames; he is wrong, I merely pointed that out.

At the time, he wasn't writing for people like that.

Studying openings doesn't mean "learn every possible line in existence". That'd be an insurmountable approach.

One can start with basic principles, then move toward understanding the basic thematic ideas and goals in a few key openings/defenses of choice.

In any case, some sort of opening study is required, lest you have a player sitting on move 1, scratching their head, having no clue what to do.

Case in point: My nephew (a beginner in every sense of the word) started by studying king+rook endgames.

In the opening? He has always opened with 1. h4, and 1...h5

The reason? When asked, he said it's because he wants to get his rook out first, so he can use it like he's done in his endgames.

Here's an example where the necessity of learning at least some basic opening principles would be (and have been) entirely beneficial to the player.

This. You can learn an opening line that leads to a clear advantage, but if you can't close out the game with that clear advantage, it's all gone for nothing. I've seen kids ahead by a rook, a knight and a couple of pawns in the ending, without the faintest idea of how to actually win. If you don't know where you're going, it's a waste of time studying how to get there.

Importance is relevant. If endgame knowledge is more important than opening knowledge then beginners might want to have a look at some endgame principles.

Capablanca also Said:

"In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before anything else. For whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middle game and opening must be studied in relation to the endgame."

I don't know that anyone here is advocating that a <1600 player do 20-move-deep-opening study. The initial question was about where to start one's studies. It seems to me that simple endgames is a plausible answer, but that does not mean that one will want to go for very long without getting to some of the other stuff.

Yes but he may not know how unimportant openings are to beginners if he lives in a world where openings are crucial.

Knowing endgames and tactics are equally important. you need some knowledge on openings but that should take up <10% of revision time the other 90% should be endgames and tactics.

Why not 33% opening study, 33% middle-game study, and 33% endgame study?

Seems like a viable approach to me.

Ok thing to do especially the higher your rating but why research something when the knowledge isn't useful?

gingerninja2003 wrote: "... you need some knowledge on openings but that should take up <10% of revision time the other 90% should be endgames and tactics."

SteamGear wrote: "Why not 33% opening study, 33% middle-game study, and 33% endgame study? Seems like a viable approach to me."

gingerninja2003 wrote: "Ok thing to do especially the higher your rating but why research something when the knowledge isn't useful?"

Doesn't a lot depend on what specifically one is talking about? Are all endgames useful to someone starting chess studies? As for openings:

"... For beginning players, [Discovering Chess Openings by GM John Emms] will offer an opportunity to start out on the right foot and really get a feel for what is happening on the board. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2006)

Does it make sense to set specific percentages without knowing how easily the person learns this or that?

There is no point to studying openings until you've developed a preferred style of play and a sound understanding of tactics.  You can't study middle-game at all unless you know what types of middle-games you are likely to see.  Endgames, however, are immediately useful, because they teach you how to FINISH.  The purpose of middle-game study is to simplify to a won endgame, but if you don't know how to win the endgame, you don't know what to simplify to.

It is not a viable approach to split evenly between openings, middle-game, and endgame.  You must study endgames first, then tactics, then positional play, and only once those three are understood can openings and middle-games be responsibly studied.

"... 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

Deirdre, you make some good points, but I also feel like these don't apply to beginners.

For example, the argument that learning endgames teachings good opening play. To me, this is an entirely advanced idea. I'm 2130 OTB and I'm still not at the level where I can think about the endgames in my opening play.

At this point in my skill set, I don't start actively considering the endgame until the middle-game, where the pawn structure has been clarified. And even then, sometimes the needs of the position are so delicate that one must focus on those before even considering the endgame. Cart before the horse.

How does learning the KvKR endgame teach opening play, for example?

Your opponent plays 1.c4. You're a beginner who has studied KvKR endgames. Does that study help you know how to respond to 1.c4? Unless the player thinking, "Hmm. 1.c4. How can I respond to reach a KvKR endgame?" is a goal, I don't see how the argument can be made.

Or: You've studied the KvKP endgame. You play 1.nf3, your opponent plays 1...g6. Does your KvKP endgame study help you figure out move 2 here?

The only way I can agree with the "study endgames first" philosophy is if one restricts the student to studying only endgames, and never playing. In that regard, I can agree.

But if the student is playing as well, then studying openings (at the very least, basic principles) should be part of the curriculum, lest the student develop poor opening habits (which will need to be broken later on), out of ignorance.

(As I pointed out earlier, my nephew, who only studied King+Rook endgames and no opening principles, played every opening with the same goal: try to get the rooks out, try to mate the enemy king with those rooks. Then he'd get frustrated when it, inevitably, never worked. There were all those other darned pieces that kept getting in the way.)