Why Chess Endings are FAR MORE IMPORTANT than Chess Openings

So being a positional player, you need to practice tactics. And vice versa. One is not more important than the other.

But saying endgame play, an absolute must in any chessplayer's repertoire, is more important than learning openings?

I would say knowing some basic openings, tactics, endgame stuff is cool for absolute beginners. But as a progression, when they are studying master games, it is more insightful to study the game from beginning to end. How the strategy formed from the particular opening played, fought for in the middlegame. Commentary often points out a deviation, an unnecessary pawn move or pawngrabbing when underdeveloped lead to a spectacular combination, structural weakness exploited in the endgame.

Playing Qpawnor closed openings necessitates knowing possible endgames as it's mostly positional.

Being alert (tactically) is of course expected when playing Latvian countergambit lines. But it's not like you can just play it with having just learned the game studying only basic opening principles.

I agree that in general, openings, middlegames and endgames are about equally important. But I also agree with Capa's point that absolute beginners should learn the basic mates and how to promote a pawn first.

I follow Kasparov's method with my own students. We analyse the student's games together and work out what areas need the most improvement. In my experience, the opening is almost never the weakest part of the student's game. 

I agree completely with GM Maurice Ashley's points as presented by Morphy'sRevenge.

In the Alisha v Carrisa endgame, playing Bxh3 was clearly best but not sure Bxd1ch lost all advantage. Black is still a pawn up, and can play bd8-f6 to hinder the e5 advance, and improve the king etc. Think in game black played bc3 giving the bishop little scope, then made a further mistake with a4 allowing too many pawns to be exchanged after bxa,bxa followed by e5.

While i do agree that studying endgames is important (beginning with the simple mating motives let's say R+K vs. K, then later studying for instance rook and pawn endings), there is one point which i still think to be valid.

Many games don't even reach the endgame, and let's assume you get a superior position out of the opening/middlegame: you have chances to reach a much better endgame. I know players who are able to defend a worse endgame to a draw, but their winning chances are not extremely high due to some weaknesses in the middlegame. Thus they do not reach the "good endgames" only the "bad endgames" which they are able to defend, which is - as such - a good thing.

Sorry for the italics (dunno why my editor refuses to use the normal font).

I used to think this was a valid argument but not anymore because while many games do not reach the end endgames teach us so much, for example piece coordination, restriction, mating patterns, tactics, schematic thinking  etc 

Got it easily too. More of a calculation / logic puzzle than needing some kind of specific endgame technique.

Just like any other kind of position, some endgames defy calculation, and at the very least knowing some common themes will help you understand them. Maybe wait until you've actually studied endgames before you judge how much they're like openings.

---

The biggest general difference that comes to mind first is how often and useful zugzwang is in endgames.

Zugzwang's a good point, though I'd still put that in the realm of calculation (you look ahead and try to play against or restrain your opponent's best responses . . . then you see that any move they make puts them in a worse position).

So, you can still play a Zugzwang ending correctly without even knowing the term or the concept.

Most of the endgame positions I've seen, actually, are really just a matter of looking several moves ahead to try to find the right continuation.

Though I do agree with you that knowing certain themes and ideas would be helpful (especially under a time crunch!). And any knowledge is good knowledge, too . . .

Mostly, my point was that opening play isn't such a different beast than endgame play. In both phases, you're looking ahead, trying to convert advantages into winning positions, trying to restrain your opponent's best responses . . . The thinking, to me, is very similar, if not the same.

Until the "Chess Endings are FAR MORE IMPORTANT than Chess Openings" folks get around to some real studies comparing the two apporaches I'm not interested in listening to them SHOUT about it.

Anecdotes are fun but not conclusive. Coaching wisdom can change.

Besides, do we really have to choose one over the other?

Most of the endgame positions I've seen, actually, are really just a matter of looking several moves ahead to try to find the right continuation.

You're a better man than I am then.

Many K+P and R+P endings are hard enough for me to get when I'm reading a book, much less over the board with a clock ticking after I've been playing a few hours.

I agree to at least some extent, I think all chess positions are approachable using the same kind of basic logic. Things like mobility, king safety, efficiency of moves, and weak points.

I agree to at least some extent, I think all chess positions are approachable using the same kind of basic logic. Things like mobility, king safety, efficiency of moves, and weak points.

Of course. However, it is a disadvantage to reinvent the wheel for oneself all the time. It is a big advantage to leverage past knowledge which is why people study openings and endgames.

I agree. I also happen to like endgames

I start my students with Opening Principles.  There is absolutely no need to teach a bare bones beginner how to play certain openings.  And the first time i hear any of my students try and tell me how "tactical"/"agressive" they are, i instantly punish them with 200 tactical puzzles each of forks, pins, skewers, etc.  That usually set them straight.  

After all of that chaos we get right to basic endings: 

KQ vs. K

KRR vs. K

KR vs. K

Opposition

KP endings

As time controls get faster and faster I believe the importance of endings is becoming even less than it was when you had sufficient time to actually play a decent ending . With time controls speeding up the importance of the opening and middlegame increases . 

isnt all this rediculousness all to make the game more "exciting" for people that dont play chess?

Its also so organizers and TDs can cram 4 games into one day and save $$  on a venue for playing . The 2 day events in decent hotels seem to be dying out and I hate it . 

Agreed...just another reason why i dont play tournaments anymore.

I disagree 100%.  The shortage of time requires you to be even more knowledgable of endings.

Knowing patterns like the back of your hand allows you to make the right moves in a much quicker period of time.

This expands all the way to very complex endings, but let's use a simple example to illustrate the point:

You are playing White in a Game/60 tournament.  You have the following position with White to move.  If you are like me, and know this ending like the back of your hand, then having 10 seconds left with 5 second delay is no problem, you'll win this game EASILY!  However, if you don't know this standard endgame position, and have to figure it out on your own, even with say, 2:13 left with 5 second delay (That's 2 minutes 13 seconds, not 2 hours 13 minutes), you will likely end up drawing.

Give me 1 second plus 5 second delay each move, no increment, and I will win this:  1.Re1+ Kd8 2.Kf7 Rf2+ 3.Kg8 Rg2 4.g7 Kd7 5.Re4 Rg1 6.Kf7 (If Black had done 5...Rf2, just go the other way, 6.Kh7) Rf1+ 7.Kg6 Rg1+ 8.Kf6 Rf1+ 9.Kg5 Rg1+ 10.Rg4 and you queen.

Knowledge of active rook vs extra pawn, standard patterns of Knight paths (i.e. 4 moves to go 2 squares diagonally - often critical when deciding where to put your King after a check, especially by a Knight), etc is all even more important in a short time control than a long one!