Why Chess Endings are FAR MORE IMPORTANT than Chess Openings

You'd better check before you post nonsense - it's a forced win for white (and a beautiful one).

I study endgames because I love them, I don't study openings because for me they are boring (although I get some opening knowledge from opening explorer in daily chess and from annotated master games)

And what is your OTB rating ?  uscf and/or fide ?  I am curious to know just how far your focus on endgames has taken you ?     I don't focus on endings more than openings or middlegames/tactics and have only made it to NM , state champion ( twice ) and have won against professional players in tournament play ... you ?? 

As much as I love endgames I'd say that tactics is the most important at least up to 1700 OTB (that's where I am now). Ability to see threats and to calculate properly is of great value in all 3 phases of game. General principles, strategies and techniques come next but they are all different for each phase.

My problem with theoretical endgames is that no matter how many times I solve the book examples and spar against an engine, next time I see same position I don't remember that exact solution - each time I have to work it out (with exception of basic stuff like Lucena for example)

@uri65, of course it is supposed to be like that, we are recognizing and combining different ideas of the endgames in the books, to work out the endgame in our games.

@jengaias     Wow ... 2200 fide 33 years ago ?!  Doesnt that entitle you to a free premium membership here ?  Why not take advantage of that ? 

 If I say a car needs good tires , I have to be an engineer to be right? 

Well , no but if you are claiming that good tires are the MOST important thing on a car you might need to be ...  

Easy there, lol. We're having a chess discussion. There's no reason to get fiesty.

The spot where we're disagreeing is where you say that openings don't deal with chess understanding.

In 1965, Fischer played in the Havana Tournament, over the phone. In response to his opponent's first move, he replied with Nf6. His opponent then played pawn to e5. Fischer snapped, "I thought you said d4!" He'd misheard his opponent's first move and accidentally played the Alekhine's Defense.

So did he throw up his hands and say, "Whoa, I haven't memorized the best lines for this opening"? No. He just shrugged and played chess.

Because even in the opening, for a good player, it's not about memorization. It's about understanding the nuances of the position.

In my opinion: if you understand how to play chess, you can play any position you're put into, whether it's an unfamiliar opening, or an ending you haven't studied.

That said, I do agree that endgame study can be beneficial. Any kind of study can help.

But the "openings are just memorization with no understanding" philosophy is just wrong, in my opinion. It's the way weaker players tend to approach the opening (unfortunately so!).

Modern time controls have definitely downgraded the importance of endings since in most games the ending will be reached with both  players in severe time shortage,thus throwing the so much needed  accuracy out the window.In former times, with two and a half hours for forty moves and then  adjournment the ending was extemely important.Mistakes in the endgame phase tend to be far less redeemable than those in the opening phase,therefore good endgame technique is a must for anyone wanting to improve their game.However,I firmly believe that all oversimplifications about chess ("chess is  just tactics","the endgame is the most important phase", "psychology is everything" ,etc.) are not to be taken too seriously since chess is a rather complex game .        

I fully agree. Look at any multi-volume chess course (Yusupov, Alburt, Seirawan) - they try to cover many aspects of chess.

And yet another thing - "only tactics" or "only endgame" is a sure way to burnout and demotivation especially for an amateur playing for fun.

I agree that endgame is very important, but you actually have to learn some openings and middlegameplay to survive long enough to play some endgames.

Endgamebooks, videoes, looking at GM endgames,Capablanca-endgames, and taking lessons I recommend. I was attending an endgamelecture with GM Torbjørn Ringdal-Hansen saturday. It helped me a lot. He told about the importance of active rooks.

To play endgames in tournament you must not accept drawoffers. A drawoffer is terminating the game before playing out the endgame. It is better training to lose a lot, than it is to accept draws.

Focus all your efforts on endgame mastery, and you'll eventually run into a player who will crush you in the opening.

Focus all your efforts on endgame and opening mastery, and you'll eventually run into a player who will crush you in the middlegame.

Focus all your efforts on endgame, opening, and middlegame mastery? Hey there—now you're getting it!

I just ran some stats using chessbase.

The average length of game for games between players rated 1000-1400 is 37 moves. That's close to the average for games between players rated 2000-2400 (39 moves). 

Yes, openings matter. But if you play against opponents who are about evenly matched with you, you're both going to miss tactics and reach endgames. 

Endgames matter just as much to a 1000 rated player as a 2000 rated player, perhaps more. 

One thing to keep in mind: if a 1200 rated player is an opening specialist, the rest of his game is probably sub-par, or else his rating would be higher.

It's much easier to play the middle game if you know what sort of endgames are favorable for you. If you study rook and pawn endings, you will start reaching more R+P endgames in your own practice because you will steer the game to those won endgames!

While I empathize with those who say they need to learn the openings in order to avoid catastrophic short losses, the orthodox view that learning endgames will improve your chess understanding, and also your rating more than studying openings is still true.

Yeah, but what's the average material disparity for the last 10-15 moves between those class E players?

If you're reaching equal endgames because you missed tactics, the solution is to not miss those tactics, not to study more endgames.

I'll look it up, S-Knight. But when I play in tournaments and look at the lower boards, they're usually fairly even in the endgame.

It's a bit tricky to know the percent of games that have certain endgames, but quite a few end up in P vs P endgames.

I just ran some stats for the games between 1000-1400 rated players, focusing only on those games that went more than 37 moves. 

53% were minor piece endgames (minor pieces and pawns, but no Rs or Qs)

23% were R+P vs R+P endgames 

4% were Q+P vs Q+P endgames.

15% were pure pawn endgames. 

Quite a few of those pure pawn endgames were also minor piece or R endgames too. 

I didn't bother looking at more complex endgames with Rooks and minor pieces.

Put succinctly:

The statistics support the claim that endgames are extremely important, even for players rated 1000-1400. 

In the 1st Orange Yusupov books, which are designed to take a player to 1800 (which is considered quite the underestimate from people who have taken the course), about 50% of the lessons are focused on tactics, while endgames are less than 20% of the lessons.  Openings are less than 10%.  And the endings he teaches in the first book are based on material disparity.. K & P endgames, Q v P on the 7th, bishop of the wrong color, etc.  In the 2nd book he has a chapter entirely devoted to "elementary endgames" which again are based on material disparity.  Q v N, Q v B, Q v 2B, etc.

I just disagree vehemently here.  If you're reaching equal endgames because both sides are missing tactical opportunities, studying endgames isn't the proper remedy.  

Back in the days when I was solidly a class E player, even the equal endgames were resolved with silly tactical oversights like rook skewers and knight forks.

Once I corrected the issues with elementary tactics, suddenly those class E and D players were no match for me.  I just had to convert games as a matter of technique.  Knowing some basic endgame principles like keeping pawns on the board, activating your king and keeping your rooks active were usually enough.

S-Knight, you can't judge the importance of the material by how many pages are devoted to it.

Capablanca  (I'm currently loaning out my copy of Chess Fundamentals so I can't check on the exact number of pages he devotes to endgames) and Lasker (Lasker's How to Play Chess less than 20% of the book is on endgames) both said that studying the endgames is the best way for beginners to learn, but they each spent only a few pages in the beginning of their books on the basic mates and certain key pawn endgames. 

Yea, You cannot reach Middlegame nor Endgame if you don't pass the opening. So all parts of the game you need to play well in order to win. Example: In the opening if u blunder u lose,so u don't pass to the middlegame, in the middlegame u blunder, u lose so you don't pass into the endgame. In the endgame u blunder u lose. All parts are very important!