Why Chess Endings are FAR MORE IMPORTANT than Chess Openings

I see so many lower rated players posting on here looking for opening advice when they don't know the basic endings.  You see K+Q vs K lead to stalemate, beginners having no idea how to win K+R vs K, K+2B vs K, or K+B+N vs King.

 

Then you get players rated around 1300 asking about openings.  At 1300, I learned more critical stuff like Lucena's Position, Philidor's Draw, the Short Side Defense, and the Long Side Defense, four CRITICAL endings to know, all dealing with Rook and Pawn vs Rook.

Lucena's Position is a mechanism for the player with the pawn to win based on cutting off the King.  The other 3 are all lines of defense if the King can get on the file of the opposing pawn. 

The drawing mechanisms are far more common than Lucena's position, as prior to this past weekend, I've had Philidor's Draw at least 30 times in my 2400+ games, and Lucena's position literally twice or three times ever.

 

That said, it's critical to know this stuff as just take a look at what happened with me rounds 3 and 4 - Yes, BACK-TO-BACK, the first of which I had under 10 seconds left with 5-second delay, and had no problems in either case executing.  THIS is why you need to know your endgames.

I make no claim that either of these games are perfectly played, and in both cases, my opponent had numerous chances to draw in the endgame.  The point is knowing the text book endings is critical.  See below:

 

 

Yes, a player does need to know tactics, positional ideas, opening concepts, etc., but what amazes me is I've been to tournaments where I've literally seen Rook and Pawn vs Rook be executed HORRIBLY.  Case in point, the player without the pawn in a tournament in South Carolina 5 or 6 years back had the opportunity to execute Philidor's Draw, and she had no clue what she was doing.  She was about 1800.  Then, White, the player with the pawn, had multiple opportunities to set up Lucena's position, and he had clearly no clue what the heck he was doing.  He was somewhere in the 1900s as I recall, possibly over 2000.  It goes back and forth between won for White and drawn until after flailing for 30 or more moves, White wins.  It's just hilarious seeing players rated over 1800 having no clue how to play an endgame.

I once managed to draw a 10/0 game achieving the Philidor position. Endgame theory is difficult to assimilate to me, but when you actually get a concept is almost as pleasant as finding a combination, and using it will be much more frequent.

Look what these titled players (also chess coaches) posted. This is very interesting.

GM Ignor Smirnov claims that the middle game is the most important thing to study, then openings, and of least importance is the endgame. He also says that one should spend only 10 minutes per day on tactics. I believe it was Silman who stated one should only study about three or so tactical puzzles per day.

http://www.chess.com/blog/linlaoda/keep-your-study-sessions-short-and-concise-to-optimize-efficiency

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_JplcEMYQg

Endgames are important, but imo, not as critical as they seem for 1300 range players. 

 

At OP's rating of 2000, yes, theyr'e super critical, but at 1100-1300 range, not so critical. 

 

You are far more likely to get nailed right out of the opening and early middlegame through either a gross tactical blunder or a gross positional blunder and get a completely lost position as a 1300 than get craftily beaten in a dead even game played down into an endgame. 

 

I actually know the Lucena position fairly well having studied it awhile back, but I can count the number of times I've reached a R+P vs R situation in my online games with a single hand where I've actually needed that knowledge to win as a <1400 rater player. And yes, after learning Philidor draws, short-side vs long-side rook draws, etc., I'm sure that it would have made almost no difference to my win/loss ratio back then had I gone back with this knowledge.

 

Now, if I'd gone back in time with the openings knowledge I have now (which isn't much at all), I def would have avoided some pretty bad positions. Just a few games ago I had a 1300+ rated player try and pull a Damiano Defense on me and in chat he said he really didn't know it was totally losing. That kind of stuff is what openings study (even a little of it) for <1300s can make a big difference for, far more than Rook endgames or pawn endgames at that level.

In the first game I didn't care for white's b3, it just doesn't look right.  I'd play c3 with the idea of watching the critical d4 square. 

f5 doesn't look like a bad move but feels too loose,f6 frees the king from defending the e4 pawn and saves a pawn move for later if needed. 

I like 35...Ra8 since the rook did its job forcing a defence of c2 and seems like it should obtain some activity by attacking the white pawns from behind (36...Ra8+) 

37...Ke4 looks much better to me not only because it threatens the push ...d4 but sets a trap: 38.Rxg5??,d4 39.Rg4+,Kf5 both rooks are attacked or 39.Re1,e2+ 40.Kc1,d2+ winning a rook again.  

37...Kg6 invites 38.Ra6+ following the principle of do not hurry.  Black intends 38...Kf5 with a small repetition to wear white down.  Otherwise 38.Re1 still looks better for black to me but may be drawn as the black king would have been cut off from the pawn advances while the white king blockades well, and going long via ...Kh5 seems too slow but worth consideration still.  

 

Overall a great game!  

The complete basics (mates with Q/R, queen vs. pawn, rook vs. pawn [this is important] square of the pawn, triangulation/other ways to lose temp/zugzwang, pawn race, opposition, Lucena, Philidor, Long Side, pawns on opposite color of bishop, rook behind pawn, knight v. bishop, and which pieces are easier to win the pawn up side of [pure kings, knights, queens, bishops, rooks]) are important. The rest can wait if you're <1800 imo.

As one of those lowly 1000-1500 rated players myself, I'll say that the oft-quoted Lucena position as being THE most important endgame position to know, usually doesn't apply at our rating. The game will be decided well before that position can even be reached despite it being a common endgame in stronger player games. I actually know it pretty well now, but it still has almost no impact on my games.

 

I'd actually say to anyone <1400 on chess.com (at blitz, long games, whatever) that if you want to get better at the endgame, start with the 300 tactical problems by Asim Perira "Tactics in the Endgame" book he sells on kindle or in download format in his ichess Android app. They're all tactics based upon late-game checkmates or queenining motifs that are all taken from real games, and you will definitely see immediate improvement in your endgame if you do them. Those are the kind of tactics that players <1300 will miss outright that will decide the game well before any theoretical endgames occur.

P. McCartney?  From the Beatles?

I hear this stuff all of the time.  How does one even reach the endgame if they're crushed in the opening?  I think a basic understanding of the openings is great for beginner chess players because it helps us avoid stupid mistakes and gets us into a position we can learn something in.  Unfortunately, I think openings discussions lack a lot of information.  The basic openings things I've read say nothing about long term goals, weaknesses, what do look out for, etc.  Just ends at turn 10 and leaves the player guessing.  Then there is the question of whether or not the other player will stick to the same simple mainline from the book.

Sorry, I am not seeing it right now. I may have posted the wrong link... I will look for it.... not that his opinion is gospel, but he makes some interesting points. He recommends 10 minutes of tactical problems/puzzles per day, one hour of studying a chess course (yes, he would like to sell his stuff - I suppose good chess books would also suffice), and 1 hour of playing and analyzing lost games. He states that the playing/analyzing is the most important thing to do, with an emphasis on analyzing. That's two hours and 10 minutes per day. Just his opinion. As pointed out above, the end game study may be more important for those who actually make it to the endgames! If you are terrible with openings and middle games, then you won't make it to the endgame very often.

I put this in the "openings are underrated" thread.

If you have a way for me to study endings, the same way I study openings on cheap walmart smart phone, I'm all ears.

I don't think most people here actually can turn K+B+N vs K into a checkmate on time control and without 50 move rule draw. I mean I understand the method off the top of my head but not many amateur players are precise with it. 

Otherwise though the OP makes a good point. 

Everything is Important. u can't just throw away the opening. Good Opening + Good Tactical Vision = Good Middle game = Good Endgame. Good luck in future.

I'm a 1400 and something player at the moment and I do know the Philidor's and Lucena position. On the other hand I have no clue about Long and Short side defence. Any link? Anyway, I almost every game have a bad position out of the openings, which I strangely don't care to study. But that's nothing, the majority of my games beibg decided by three things: some tactics, some blunders (or the combination of the two, every time I review my games I wonder how I missed so many easy moves) and the ability to convert in victory finals with big advantages. Question is, one difficult thing for a beginner (at least for me) is the adjustment needed between the middle game and the final. I play 15/10 games and often after a final semplification I struggle a lot to keep a grasp of what's going on and, with little time left, I blunder and throw away the game.

Link for long + short side defense:

Youtube "P.L. Endgame Videos" - they're great, and he does an excellent job on clearly explaining short side and long side defense. 

Regarding KBN vs K endgames, they're much more of a pure theoretical concept than an endgame you will ever encounter OTB (at least that's what a master has said about it that I came across.)

 

For studying endgames on a phone (someone asked above), just get a .pgn file of endgames, and load it up on any pgn-reading app like PGNMaster. I bought the pgn for Starting Out Rook Endgames via Everyman chess just this past wknd, and it works great playing through on the phone or computer. Farrrr better than book format - waste no time entering moves and worrying about if you entered them correctly.

I can tell you that I first learned those 4 R+P vs R endings when I was about 1300.  Those were the 4th and 5th times I've executed Lucena's position in 2400+ games.  When was the first time?  Back when I was 1300 about 2 weeks after first learning it.  2 other times since then, and then these 2 this past weekend.

That said, I've executed Philidor's Draw over 30 times, both as a 1500 player back in 1998 and as a 2100 player in 2014.  It happens a lot more than you think, even at the lower level.  Knowing it allows the defending side to realize that he doesn't have to win back the pawn and take high risks, just hold your position and get from R+6 vs R+5 to R+1 vs R with your King properly placed.

Admittedly, the other two are very rare because more often than not, Philidor's Draw is possible.  One time, White had occupied the 6th rank and I had to go with the Short Side Defense against the f-pawn.

But still.  At least 25% of my games are R+P endings, and better than 1% ends up being R+P vs R.  I've had Lucena's position 5 times, Philidor's Draw over 30 times, the Short-Side Defense once, and I've been on the side of Philidor's Draw a handful of times being the one up the pawn (usually I end up agreeing to the draw before it reaches that unless I'm playing a low-rated player or a child (many children and teens are tactic geniuses, but their endgame is no better than that of a 1200 player).  So Probably a good 2% of your games actually will reach R+P vs R, even at the lower levels.

This will show you the Short Side Defense

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+short+side+defense&FORM=VIRE3#view=detail&mid=27B2563B766D96102A7427B2563B766D96102A74

 

(NOTE:  It isn't picking up the whole thing as a link.  Copy and paste the entire URL instead of clicking)

The Long Side Defense must go under a different name.  There is also the Passive Defense, where the Defender's Rook stays on the back rank.

The thing to know is which ones work with which pawns:

Lucena's Position - Any pawn except a Rook Pawn (The defending Rook can hem the King in on the a- or h-file)

Philidor's Draw - Any pawn, but not necessary against the Rook Pawn - easier ways to draw that.

Long-Side Defense (again, must be under another name) - Central pawns

Short-Side Defense - Bishop Pawns (c or f)

Passive Defense - Knight or Rook pawns.

 

This is why I get Philidor's Draw the most often.  Lucena's position specifically requires the King to be cut off from the file of the pawn, and the Short-Side, Long-Side, and Passive Defenses aren't necessary if Philidor's Draw can be achieved, so usually either the pawn has to already be on the 6th, or the Rook is controlling the 6th, otherwise, Philidor's Draw is simplest.

CJ_P wrote:

I put this in the "openings are underrated" thread.

If you have a way for me to study endings, the same way I study openings on cheap walmart smart phone, I'm all ears.

All you need to know are the basics, and Silman's Complete Endgame Course does a good job with it. You can probably just google endgames or post it on the forums here, though.

without a good opening one can not make it to the end.

Thank you, P.L. Endgame Videos look very interesting