Why Chess Endings are FAR MORE IMPORTANT than Chess Openings

Study endgames.  Exchange down to endgames.  Win the endgames.  Very simple.

Along the way exchange queens and knights -- that takes the bulk of complexity out of the middlegame, regardless of the opening played.

Pal Benko was feared (in the endgame), you can be too.

It's relatively easy to exchange everything off.  Then play for win, regardless of the position. Just Do It.  Like Nike sporting goods.  

http://www.amazon.com/From-Opening-Endgame-Edmar-Mednis/dp/1857441249

http://www.amazon.com/From-Middlegame-Endgame-Everyman-Chess/dp/1857440609/ref=pd_sim_14_7?ie=UTF8&dpID=51SVe0qBGEL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR97%2C160_&refRID=0GVXT7KDA294F3PRHK5S

GM Nesis also has a pair of books on Tactical Chess Exchanges, and Exchanging to Win in the Endgame.  Both are great reads.

This will turn out like the movie West Side Story.  

The Sharks are the Endgame fans

The Jets are the Opening fans

I reach rook endgames very often in my games. I don't practice them nearly as much as I wish, but I still notice that my opponents tend to blunder profusely. 

One example that I can practically count on is that when I attack one of their pawns, they defend it laterally instead of counter attacking one of mine- which is the general rule of thumb in rook endgames (whether with 1 or 2 rooks)

Thanks, now my rook is better than yours!

Another hilarious mistake I see is players leaving their back rank undefended. Nor for checkmate no, but what I mean is they defend their second rank and I figure i can't do harm on the back rank. So I move my rook to the back rank. They think "what did he do that for, that wasn't attacking anything) and then I go behind one of their pawns and go "Holy crap I'm in trouble."

I've crushed totally drawn rook endgames (but admitiddly also made similar mistakes to my opponents, even with time pressure because I still don't practice rook endgames nearly as much as I wished I did) because of these common mistakes my opponents make, and I definitely take way less time than my opponents. I think it surprises my opponents that in 6 pawn + rook and similar endgames I usually make my moves pretty much instantly. But it shouldn't be a surprised since I have it down to a pattern and have practiced against stockfish (that was when I was in better form). They sometimes find that their 15 minute - 2 minute lead in the middle game ends in a loss on time because endgames take huge amounts of time to calculate if you don't have them learned already.

So I'm glad I have taken the time to learn about rook endgames, and I look forward to learning them better.

Regarding Pal Benko: He invented his eponymous gambit in order to reach the endgame safely right out of the opening! It worked for him!

And the odds of a <1900 player doing the same, playing an opening expressly to reach a planned superior endgame, are close to zero. That's high-level stuff to pull that off - it's hard enough for sub 1900s to not blunder won pure pawn endgames. 

That's demonstrably false. In games between players rated 1000-1900, Black scores 53%! (35% white wins, 24% draws 41% black wins). 

The Benko is an opening designed specifically for an endgame advantage.

In fact, the Benko is an example of an opening that tends to reach endgames long before move 30.

I'm not saying that the Benko is a bad opening or not winnable for black.

I'm also aware that the Benko is meant specifically for endgame advantage.

But getting there as a class player (and especially as a lower class player) is a lot less about the endgame, and all about surviving the opening/middlegame correctly. If you're good enough to play into advantageous endgames consistenly in the Benko,you're clearly NOT a novice player, and are probably a fairly advanced player. (How many novice or intermediate players even have the Benko in their repertoire?)

Again, playing openings with intent to get to a winning endgame presupposes you have sufficient skill in the opening and middlegame to execute it correctly, and a fairly high level of skill.

I hear constantly from kids, and low rated players..."I know the <insert opening here> 20 moves deep"  These same players will go on and drop pieces, miss simple tactics, and not know how to play R+P ending.  They will sit aimlessly shuffling pieces around with no idea what to do.  

Is that statistic just about the Benko or about openings in general?

Because if it's just in general, I'm very skeptical and I'd love to see where you've gotten it from.

I am 1833 at the moment and so far this year I have played 31 rated games. As white I have played 15 games, and I have 6 wins, 4 draws, and 5 losses. As black I have played 16 games, and I have 1 win, 7 draws, and 8 losses. While my average opponent over that period of time is 1892, close to the top of the rating range you listed, my statistics are very contradictory to what you have indicated. And no, I don't study more openings with white than I do with black; actually I think I spend a lot more time with black than white and still have more issues with my openings with black than with white.

What is it about "mindless hairsplitting" that so attacts chess players?

"The Benko is designed to reach an early endgame."

Surely this is blindingly obvious, upon simple consideration?

2 years ago at the national open i played up in the -2000 section.  I lost 1 game, and they all went to the endgame.  I simply knew the endings better than the higher rated players.  You know how much "opening prep/theory" helped?  It didnt.  I got by on opening principles.  

@zborg If you're actually playing every chess game with the intention of trading all the pieces to bring about an ending, then good luck.

Sure, you can play lines that lead to endgames, but if your opponent doesn't want it, you can't force him into one without making concessions.

Your prose are continual stream of "what if" exceptions, @dpnorman.  Try to think and write clearly.  You'll be a better man for it.

"Exchange Pieces," (via Mednis, Nesis, or Benko) to reach the endgame is only one of many methods for squeezing out the win.

It's largely a mater of personal taste how you set about doing it.  Same is true of for your choice of openings.

On balance, some players want to checkmate in a blaze of glory in the middlegame. Others are happy to win through pawn promotion in the endgame.  Your choice.

I must say that as someone that likes to study chess for its own sake rather than play it I find that it was difficult to get a taste for endgame's, they appeared rather dry and technical at first ( I realise there are essentially two kinds, technical and schematic) but like a good whisky, once one has acquired a taste for it nothing else will do!

The statistics are 53% for Black in the Benko. In general, white has a ~56% score. 

As anyone who has played in class tournaments can tell you, class players tend to memorize openings many moves deep. Players who choose the Benko as Black almost always get the complex endgame they were aiming for. 

Statistically, the 1000-1900 crowd accepts the gambit more than any other option. 

@zborg Cute response. Well-worded. No substance though.

You can't approach every game with such a mentality. Doing so will not only hinder improvement but also get you stuck in worse positions when it doesn't work out.

Btw, Yusupov recommends that when you are ahead in material your first instinct should be to use that material to attack, not trade down! It's great advice. If there's no attack, or worse, if the opponent is attacking, trades make great sense. 

This thread is not about "improvement or getting stuck in worse positions," sorry to inform, @dpnorman.  And it is most certainly not about your personal game data. 

Endgame knowledge gives you power to win, especially in rapid time controls.  That's a simple proposition, and hardly controversial.

[But] "You can't approach every game with such a mentality" -- again, you set up a straw man exception, then vigorously knock him down.  Yawn.

Clear thinking, concisely expressed.  Thanks for the erudition.  (+1)

@zborg If you believe I am setting up straw man arguments and misrepresenting your position, then by all means, explain what you are arguing. At the moment, my best interpretation of what you are saying is that your current strategy in chess is to exchange all the pieces and try to win every game in the ending. If that's not what you're saying, please correct me. And please don't give me any sort of arrogant reply along the lines of "well, if you don't understand what I'm saying, then re-read my posts because it should be obvious" (as you tend to do), because frankly, it isn't.

My inclusion of personal game data was in response to another poster, as you can clearly see above, and has nothing to do with the discussion we are having currently.

And finally, I don't disagree at all that it helps to know endgames. But I do think that it's not nearly as valuable as you're making it out to be until one gets to a very high level, a much higher level of chess than the level demonstrated by your chess.com ratings and games. I believe there are much higher priorities than studying endgames at class level, and one should be efficient in prioritizing the most important areas of the game in his chess studies. That is unless, of course, one doesn't want to improve, and is content to lose games to 1500s for the rest of his life.