Why Chess Endings are FAR MORE IMPORTANT than Chess Openings

Opening novelties: who comes up with this stuff? It's not pure engine work I guess. It's creativity of the human mind, the thing that makes Chess beautiful. What makes Chess beautiful is our limited human mind. Limited calculating ability, limited memory, limited concentration, and others. Come to think of it If we can calculate and store information like computer engines and table databases then Chess will become boring! That will be the beginning of the end of the game.

It's weird that any competitive chess player would say the opening phase doesn't matter. (How you play it!)

Indeed. It's often a misconception that booked up players don't know how to play endgame inasmuch as saying tactical players don't know how to play positional. But to outright say that one plays a chess game simply on a move to move basis, regardless of the "phase" of the game seems pretentious.

If one were universal, okay I concede to the player whose stats include depth of opening repertoire, middlegame prowess, and solid endgame theory. But, heh, unless you're on another level than the rest of here posting~I would say you're full of it.

I agree, it is tempting for me as an 1067 to study openings, because i feel that when my pieces are placed correctly in the opening i have more chance of winning. But i am following the amateurs mind now, and after that the endgame course of Silman. I feel that i win more games because i now when to place a rook at an open file, of how to stop a passed pawn of my opponent. The things you learn from endgames and tactical lessons like those of Silman, are easy to apply in every game, and every opening.

Everyone (eventually) needs an "opening repetoire" (whether extremely narrow, like the Hippo, or Modern Defense, with both colors), or theoretically huge (like the Ruy, Sicilian, KID, and many other openings).

But you can waste YEARS of study time and book buying (of openings), without ever achieving a substantial improvement in your overall playing strength.

That's all the insight this thread ever sought to convey.

I read the title of this forum and thought "That's been started by a relatively strong player".

And for anyone wondering whether it is true, there's your answer.

If you want to make sure your pieces are placed corretly, follow opening principles.  

the people i play never play the moves in my opening book it is a waste of a tree

The opening matters. But a novice should probably spend about ten per cent of his energy on that and the rest of his time on tactics and endgames. It would be far more beneficial to memorize the Lucena position than to memorize ten moves of the Berlin.

I always felt that endgames are overrated.I got to 2000 FIDE without almost any endgame knowledge.The only theoretical endgame I know is the lucena position.Not all games even reach the endgame.But you have to play the opening every-game.I believe that both are important.Opening perheaps even more so.

"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)

The difference between openings and endings is that openings are mostly about remembering the exact move to play in a specific position, and endings are mainly about precise, critical analysis. Which interests you most?

For the purposes of successful chess at club level, the most important thing about the opening is getting out of it alive.