Why Chess Endings are FAR MORE IMPORTANT than Chess Openings

It's so easy to sidestep nearly everyone's opening prep by playing a universal opening.  After 20 move pairs, which you typically know better than your opponent, the position is usually level, unless someone drops material.

Tactical and endgame knowledge (at any speed) makes playing much easier, and faster. It's the measure of stronger players.  Take the hint.

High School Chess is essentially the desire to die in a sea of crazy tactical complications.  This we all know, (and many of us have experienced).

So What ??  Most of them just burn out after reaching USCF 1800.

Conversely, USCF 1800+ is the 90th percentile, and that top 10 percent accounts for fully 50 percent of the games played.

They are very busy fellows.  And most of them know lots of endgame theory.  Granted, some a very tactical at Game in 5 hours.  But again, so what??

Endgame knowledge adds pleasure to the game, and affords you the capability to play (very) quickly.  Usually a 5 second bonus is all you need, to reach the end of the game "on the board," not "on the clock."

I'm in high school and never burned out so far. Only been training for 1.5 years

Dvoretsky sucks.  Only for very strong players

John Nunn's many books are heads and shoulders better.  And don't leave you baffled by the complexity.

Nunn teaches, Dvoretsky lectures ad nauseum.

@zborg I don't get your point about high school chess. Many high school players are 1800+ (I'm 1833 and not even in the top 100 for my age group, unlike a lot of my friends), and as I'm sure you know, a kid or a teenager rated 1800 is almost invariably stronger than an adult of such rating, as the young players are still improving.

I don't know how one can generalize about the playing styles of all high school chessplayers, but as one myself (who rarely plays in scholastic tournaments btw, and plays in all the Open tournaments between DC and Philadelphia against competition of all ages), I can assure you that it is not necessary to study endgames in depth at the 1800 level. I haven't done it, and while I certainly have had some frustrating tournaments lately, that hasn't been at all because of the endgame, rather the middlegame or opening (actually it's been a while since I've even reached a theoretically relevant endgame).

jengais is constantly beating the "1000 rated players should study DEM" drum for some reason.  Not taking anything away from Dvoretsky or the book itself.  But the preface says it's designed to take 2200 players up to GM. :shrug:

Game in 5 hours, yes.  HS chess included.  Indeed, many 1700-1800 players don't need much endgame knowledge at that speed.

No one said study endgames "in depth," the OP's original post (essentially) said -- "this kind of knowledge will allow you to convert wins in time scrambles."

And the OP was largely correct, subject to the usual caveats.

USCF 1800 is still roughly the 90th percentile of U.S. tournament players, and the players above that rating account for roughly 50 percent of all games played in the U.S.  Indeed, roughly 2/3rd of the Federation is under 20 years old.  No math needed.

If a well respected trainer devotes 50% of his book to a certain topic, it's hard to come away with a different conclusion.  The orange books were a 3-year program for his own students.

I think quotes from Lasker/Capa about studying endgames as a way for beginners to learn are about absolute beginners.  You teach them some basic endgames to learn about how the pieces work individually or coordinate with a second piece.  If you look at some beginner chess material aimed at children they have lots of little puzzles with only a couple of pieces on the board to demonstrate an idea.

I don't think Capa meant for a beginner to study Dvoretsky.  I think Capa would tell people to study Silman's endgame book.

@zborg Why do you keep bringing up this statistic about USCF 1800+ rating? All that shows is that stronger players are more dedicated. We already knew this. But being 1800 USCF is nothing to brag about at all if you are not under 12 years old or so. Anyone who starts at a reasonably young age can get to it, and it's a pretty weak level all things considered. Case in point: I'm an 1800, and I'm really no good at chess considering the amount of time I spend on it. Most of my serious chess friends are much stronger than I am (and many of them are younger as well).

dpnorman wrote:

@zborg I don't get your point about high school chess. Many high school players are 1800+ (I'm 1833 and not even in the top 100 for my age group, unlike a lot of my friends), and as I'm sure you know, a kid or a teenager rated 1800 is almost invariably stronger than an adult of such rating, as the young players are still improving.

I don't know how one can generalize about the playing styles of all high school chessplayers, but as one myself (who rarely plays in scholastic tournaments btw, and plays in all the Open tournaments between DC and Philadelphia against competition of all ages), I can assure you that it is not necessary to study endgames in depth at the 1800 level. I haven't done it, and while I certainly have had some frustrating tournaments lately, that hasn't been at all because of the endgame, rather the middlegame or opening (actually it's been a while since I've even reached a theoretically relevant endgame).

Same here. Not a high school player myself but still young enough. I won quite a few tournament games recently off of endgame technique but they weren't theoretical endings like the ones the people pro endgame theory would expect to study. I am going to start working on my endgame skills more and more now because that seems to be what works, but as far as theoretical endings I have never played a lucena position. Or a rook and pawn vs. pawn ending at all. The games I won in the ending most of the time were won by tactical shots,winning ones missed by my opponents to win the game and an additional oversight to lose the game. Most of the work ive done has been tactics with a little study of opening structures that take my booked up opponents out of their pet lines. Ive reached a rating of 1889 doing this and i expect to climb still higher soon.

Your home page makes my case for me -- (direct quote below), and best wishes on your endeavor.

"I play chess instead of having a life. My goal is to reach U.S.C.F. 2200 and National Master title. My achievements thus far include:

-2014 Greater Baltimore High School Champion..." 

I have played in scholastic tournaments in the past. So? That does little to make a case...and as stated above, if you look at my USCF history, you will find that since last summer, the only scholastic tournament I have played in was the high school championship of my state. Regardless, I don't understand the point you're making. But thank you for your kind wishes.

My comment may not be correct in your case, but I'd like to point out: if you don't know endgames then your middlegame play (whether you plan on it or not) tends to be an all or nothing approach.

The problem with these threads, every time, is people use broad sweeping statements IE "don't study openings" or "study endgames".  The advice needs to be specific and tailored to the individual. Openings and Endgames are very broad and deep topics.   Saying to study or not study that topic doesn't tell you anything.

"Don't study openings" is bad advice.  "Don't memorize 20 moves of theory you don't understand" is specific and good advice.

"Study the endgame" is bad advice.  "Learn how to mate with a rook and king against a king" is specific and good advice.

No matter how good we get at chess, we're all objectively bad at it compared to Carlsen. :)

Indeed, you don't get my point, @Dpnorman.

Perhaps re-read all the related posts.  Then it should be clear.

P.S. -- BEST WISHES IN YOUR PURSUIT.  I MEAN IT.  

We are typing past each other.  Tha't the problem with interweb conversations.

That's a nice attempt to be elegant, but my style isn't influenced by my age, and I don't even play scholastics anymore. And certainly some of my higher-rated friends (many well over 2000, and many who also play primarily in Open tournaments) have also relatively little endgame knowledge, and it doesn't matter in their games.

One of the endgames that got left out that is important is K+Q vs. K+P on the seventh rank.  The difference between a win loss or draw depends on which file the pawn is on and how close the kings are -- as the side with only a pawn I held the draw in such a position when I was only a 1500.

Despite all the nay-sayers endgame knowledge matters. Probably a lot of the ones that are saying it doesn't matter don't realize all the points and half-points they've lost through their lack of knowledge.

Perhaps you need a different sample size (from you chess friends and colleagues)?

You seem to be missing the forest for the trees, @Dpnorman.  I was talking about the USCF forest (not your individual tree).

21 posts is about 50 minutes is perhaps the "best explanation" for the latest wrinkles in this thread.