Why are endgame studies important?

Any advantage you can get over your opponent is a good thing for you.

Be it stronger tactics, opening preparation, superior endgame, or control of an open file.

 

I see folks have addressed the difference between "studies" and "studying", but I am not sure if others have addressed the last two parts of your question:

-- I am unaware of middlegame/opening studies.  There are middlegame/opening positions that you can study, some of which are composed, but I believe the genre of "studies" is confined to the endgame.  

-- if your question is "why is reviewing endgame studies more valuable than middlegame/opening positions", I would challenge that I don't believe any trainers say one is more valuable than another.  Most trainers and books I have read say endgame studies are valuable, but dont argue their value compared to other kinds of positions.

 

If your question is really about endgame studies...you have TONS of great answers here.  In my experience, they have helped me more deeply understand the mechanics of individual pieces.  Just try them for yourself and you'll quickly appreciate it.  

I am 1800 Otb and although I have pulled off a few lucena type positions in tournaments, I still don't always find the Lucena and the Philidor a walk in the park for me, especially when it comes to reaching those positions. I have also seen 1500-1600 players who don't know a basic king and pawn ending/opposition or who think they should have won the game because they were up a pawn. 

I took my son to a tournament a few weeks ago in a church basement where you could actually see the games.  Two 1400 kids (not my son) spent a solid 10 minutes in a rook vs knight endgame (no pawns) and both where completely clueless about what was happening -- the player with the rook chased the knight all over the board just with his rook, while the player with the knight had his king tucked away in the corner "safely".  Finally the rook/king got forked resulting in a draw, and the player with the rook was very angry he couldnt find the win.

im not sure on what your point is. rook vs knight endgame with no pawns is a theoretical draw unless the knight can be isolated from the king (easier said than done)

Having done some reading endgame study is not limited to chess.
you should be clear about the goal you wish to attain. Just like if you begin a journey, you know your desired destination.

It means "always plan ahead."

It's a clever phrasing... a slight play on words.

"End" can simply mean termination. Something is finished. There is nothing more to do.

However, it can also mean "goal." Examples:
"The end justifies the means."
"You could certainly put salt into coffee, but to what end? It would taste terrible, and it would just waste both salt and coffee."

Your phrase combines both meaning into one. It sounds clever because of the use of the contrasting words "begin" and "end."

The sentence means that before we start on anything, we should have some kind of overall plan. In our mind, we should have a specific goal--the "end"--and a plan or path to get to it. And we should have it in our mind before we begin.

This is a motivational saying about setting and achieving goals. When you set a goal (begin) it is important to have a clear idea of your goal (end). This will increase the chance of reaching your goal.
Capablanca said it in Chess and Stephen covey said in one of the habits of highly effective people, begin with the end in mind!

you dont need tha deep study of the endgame to know what positions you dont want.

 

like, all things considered 

-being down space for no reason and no pawn weaknesses on your opponent is no good

-usually bishop pair is good

-avoid doubled pawns, especially isolated doubled pawns.

-in bishop vs knight endgame, avoid diversified pawn islands if you play with knight.

-two rooks > queen unless there is lots of pawn action, or unsafe kings.

 

and so on , and so on. which is why the idea of a strong positional player who is not that great an endgame  player is not exactly an oxymoron. most decent players KNOW what a bad position is, way before simplifications.

First thing to remember: If you have  a coach who knows what he or she is doing, follow their advice and ignore anything you read in forums on chess.com. 

 

What is your mentor's rating?

 

How to know if the coach knows what he/she is doing? 

they are some things a coach is unlikely to teach you. if a coach were to teach you how to properly use a chess engine to maximize your capacity to do post-mortem independently of him, he would be out of job pretty quickly, whereas he wastes 45 minutes showing 3 cute studies  he can milk those 40$/hr lessons for a while.

 

im not saying all coaches are like this, but there is a certain degree of "dont teach them TOO much" often at play. you gotta teach them just enough to make them improve AND be return customers. too efficient a job can actually hurt their livelyhood.

Yusupov strongly advises his readers not to use an engine. Many other top-flight coaches agree.

 

I agree up to a point. When a player has learned the basics of analysis, s/he should analyse a game thoroughly, making notes of all of the key turning points. The player should spend at least as much time analyzing as they did playing the game. Only after all of that analysis is done should they turn on the engine. Find out where the engine disagrees, and why. Even then, don't take the engine's analysis as final. Go down the variations and learn  from its analysis. See if you can improve on it!

My autocorrect has gone berserk.

It wants me to spearmint my notez.

why am i not surprised that a member of the old guard doesnt fully appreciate innovation?

 

but to be fair, i dont know if i could judge the self analysis first, then engine, vs engine only way.i think pound for pound, the latter is superior and that's the only way i done it, but the former does make sense.

You learn by studying, not by being given the answers.

this is simply not true. there is a reason coaches like silman recommend very fast skimming of many master games. chess is about pattern recognition. constantly being exposed to high level ideas is the key to good positional understanding. being constantly corrected by an engine on your games and seeing the top continuations is a perfect way to develop strong chess intuition.

 

am i the only person who knows how to use a chess engine properly or what? do you guys take 5 minutes to go over your whole game and just see a single suggestion or something? with an engine you can 

-explore ideas you never played out but thought in a game

-see not just the first, but 2nd 3rd and 4th move and so on, not just one plan

-fully see why your idea is inadequate

-allow an engine to punish some of your more abstract ideas.

-access an opening database and sometimes an endgame database as well.

 

you have  a 3400 monster on your laptop and you all want someone masticating "ideas" to you. 

- 

Well...IMHO, Problem 1) some of us may have very unique ways of incorporating chess skills. Problem 2) some expert chess players teach the way they’ve been taught or know it which doesn’t fit the way the student learn. That’s why some teachers/coaches don’t connect well with the students. Subsequently, the student learns or keep making the same mistakes. That’s why there’s a big apparent debate in this thread. Some say endgames are not necessary are really not much benefit or disagree on wether or not they are more, equally or less valuable than opening and middle-game study.

That would splain a lot...

And how many learn to read by speed reading?

Here's a game where, me a patzer is learning why endgame studies are important. I've been reading the Silman endgame studies for class E players then I'm now looking at class D. Class E explained exactly what I did in this endgame...a rather simple one but I actually incorporated what I learned which I would not have prior to my knowledge of reading. I had 5.3 seconds left, my opponent had 24 seconds! Of course you guys who are immortal experts can spot my mistakes throughout the game.