Why Chess Endings are FAR MORE IMPORTANT than Chess Openings

Isn't it the opposite? You'll be forced to play endgames with much less time.

I mean, you're right that if someone doesn't know their openings well then that will really hurt them, but most experienced players don't have this problem I think. At least for them, I think shorter time controls puts more pressure on the endgame.

I just played a G/60 D5 tourney of 4 r ss and 3 of the 4 I won in the middlegame and didnt play an ending . One of them reached a Q+N ending and was a simple draw due to a perpetual check . I try to decide my games before the endings by playing sharp openings/middlegames . It works for me . When you are past the age of 60 you dont have a lot of stamina , certainly not as much as the kids you often face so if you play many long drawn out endings you are losing a lot of energy for the following rounds so for a senior player , in particular , to play endings means a huge drain on his energy and less time before the next round . Ofcourse it doesnt mean I am ignorant of endings and everyone should know the basic endings , at minimum , but learning more complex endings can wait until you are at least reaching such endings in your games . Ofcourse I disagree that any one phase of the game is far more important than the other two phases , thats just nonsense . 

You seem to have it all backwards.

I'm in my 40s now, and I see myself avoiding too many wild middlegames.  No reason to force game's end in the middlegame.  I say get to an endgame and play a position you know with 10 pieces on the board rather than knocking that 60+ year old brain over some wild, complicated position with 30 of the 32 pieces left on the board!

Of course, I'm not going to trade just to trade - that's assinine!  But trying to play some wild Frankenstein-Dracula variation against the Vienna Game, just to assure the game will be decided in the middlegame, is a sure-fire way to instant death against some 17-year old wild tactical genius controlling the White pieces!

Give me something a little calmer against those wild turkeys!  Not dull, just not quite as wild, like maybe a Caro-Kann or normal Nf6/Nc6 defense against the Vienna!

Also, if you don't know what to do with 8 pieces on the board, you'll never know what to do with 32 pieces!

Thriller , we do what we think is best for us . Maybe the ending is your best phase ?  The middlegame is my best phase in chess so its natural for me to try and bring about a crisis in the middlegame , I have always played this way and still do . Endings are my biggest weakness and openings fall somewhere between the two . One of my closest friends is also an NM and is 61 . He shares your attitude and fondness of endings and believes he can beat class players by dragging them into endings where ( they are at their weakest " he assures me and beat them with experience/knowledge and this is what he tries to do every game . The result ?  His round in a tourney is often the last one to finish even if he wins , which he doesnt always do . He complains of being so tired and only having 10 minutes before the next round and he has to do it again ! Often after 3 such rounds he is exhausted and ready to go home but has to play 2 games on Sunday and often suffers a complete collapse on Sunday . With my approach I am rarely the last game finished in any round and have some time between rounds and have some energy left for the last two games , which are often " money games " as you know . So he has an approach which I think you would endorse while I prefer shap middlegames which I may win or lose but am playing to my strength and he is playing to his .  The end result is that currently my OTB rating is over 100 points higher than his and he loses far more games to lower rated players than I do . So , which approach is better ? To me the results seem to say mine is but I know its too little data to be taken too seriously.  I really believe one should play the game in such a way that the crisis in the game is reached where they are strongest , not weakest and for me thats the middlegame , which also conserves my energy for subsequent rounds . 

 Interesting perspectives. I also aim for non-dull, but fairly quiet positions. When I play 60+ move games back to back I'm tired and I'm in my 30s heh.

This is making me consider my analysis difficulties (I often get into time trouble) from a different perspective though. Considering my opening choices and that I often enter endgames, in general I may be over-analyzing my middlegame positions. If I can cut that down I'd be saving energy too, hmm.

Speelman pointed out that in the endgame, knowing the rules and following them is right about 95% of the time. A good endgame player will be GREAT at fast time controls. This is seen repeatedly in blitz games online and OTB. Ulf Anderssen was one of the highest rated blitz players for years on ICC.

Reb: Great inside stuff! Thanks.

"Noone really can overestimate the value of endgames"

Whether Keres said it or not, I think people overestimate the value of endgames all the time on chess.com -- like the OP in this topic.

It's good to know endgames, but it's not the magic key to chess which is required to unlock all the doors to higher ratings and far overshadows the study of openings.

Well, I don't know about that. Maybe for some players, it's true. Me? I try to play good moves regardless of what phase of the game I'm in.

I don't consider endings more important than openings (nor the other way around). It's all the same, in my opinion. Chess is chess.

Your turn to play? Try to find your best move. Doesn't matter if it's the opening, middle, or endgame.

One thing about openings is that every chess game has an opening phase and this isnt the case for either the middlegame nor the endgame !  

True. Which is why I consider opening preparation extremely valuable, too.

There are few things worse than playing a 3+ hour game where you spend two and half hours of it struggling to salvage an inferior position—simply because your opponent was more prepared in the opening than you were. :(

I've lost the advantage in the opening, but I've rarely lost points on the cross table in the opening.

I've missed plenty of points from late mid game to endgames on the cross table.

I suppose this depends to some extent on the openings you play.

Yeah, I think it depends on the opening, too. In some, less-theoretical openings, the players can whittle things down to an endgame, then the superior player can eek out the win.

However, against a booked-up Catalan player, for example, if I make one misstep in a QGD setup, I tend to get slowly crushed off the board. At best, I'll survive a pawn down, and head into a losing endgame.

At that point, Endgame Knowledge won't help me—other than to help me realize that I'm already lost. :P

That's just a dumb comment. Not to mention, rude.

Here, Kasparov was lost by move 16, while he was still in his opening phase. I suppose you consider Kasparov one of the "fools and ignorants", too?

(Beautiful play from So, by the way!)

lol

Clearly, even in the highest of levels, players get into bad positions in the opening.

Now you're trying to twist the argument into talking about theory? Nice try.

The opening phase is still the opening phase, regardless of whether or not it involves documented theory.

Wesley plays Nbd2 on move 6, and you say, "Show me a book that mentions it!"

Now, because you can't find the move in a book, you suddenly think that means the opening phase is over? If so, you clearly have a lot to learn about chess.

Whether that move is in a database or not, it's still part of the opening.

Simply put: bad positions in the opening happen to even the greatest of players, and to call players at my level (or at any level, for that matter) "fools and ignorants" for getting into difficult positions, well, that just makes you both wrong, and a jerk.

Anyway, I'm done talking about this here. Feel free to keep arguing all you like—I'll be off playing and studying with the rest of the "fools and ignorants".

The problem with that approach, for me at least, is when one runs into well-prepared players—and I'm talking FMs, IMs, and GMs—who can, and usually will, punish you for simply playing "common sense" moves.

They've studied and prepared against every move you're considering, both the theoretical ones, and the out-of-book ones.

Fischer didn't study obscure opening lines for nothing. He knew the power of preparation and outworking his opponents, both on and off the board.

Sometimes, the difference between a good move (one that's figured out while sitting at the board) and the best move (one that's been extensively researched and tested in home prep) can be the difference between a draw and a loss. Especially when you're facing opponents that are as strong, or stronger, than you.

But whatever. This discussion seems to be moving away from the purpose of the thread.

Plus, the whole: "You're a fool and ignorant" insult thing is getting old.

So I'm bowing out. Farewell.

Please close the door on the your way out, @Blunderbust.  It's always all about you, unfortunately.

Occasionally, GMs will get into bad positions in the openings, because doing simple exchanges gives them a skin rash.  In the game cited above -- 8) ...BxNf3, would easily push that game for another 40+ moves -- without a complex, bone-crushing-combination, waiting to be sprung on Kasparov, after move #16.

What a crazy story line.  Why do you even bother flogging it?

"... In games between novice chess players, color is not the most important factor, but acquired knowledge is crucial. Without the basics of opening play it is easy to fail, and that's why openings must be learned. ..." - Journey to the Chess Kingdom by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin.