Why Chess Endings are FAR MORE IMPORTANT than Chess Openings

This specific endgame is covered in Yusupov's books.  I believe Silman also covers this one very early in his endgame book.  So that's two writers who believe that specific endgame knowledge is important for beginning players.

No one in here is arguing that endgames are completely worthless and there's nothing worth knowing.  That would be silly.

I tried to be objective. I demonstrated that the argument that endgames matter to experts and masters but not 1000-1400 rated players was spurious. I did a statistical analysis of games between 1000-1400 players and even discussed what types of endgames tend to arise.

Clearly, endgames matter to players of all levels. 

Silentknight "vehemently" disagrees with this fairly obvious fact, and then complains that "people use broad sweeping statements IE "don't study openings" or "study endgames".  " 

I did not say "don't study openings". I did not say "don't study tactics". S-Knight made a strawman argument and then complained about people making strawman arguments!

Once again: endgames are extremely important to players of all levels. 

Some people may not admit (or realize) how many basic endgames they know.

I completely forgot about K+Q vs K+P for example, but I know at least a few positions there.

I never said that you did.

It only takes a material advantage of 1-2 pawns to convert a winning endgame.  Pawn promotion at high speeds becomes the order of the day, for most players on this site, especially at Game in 5/5.

Conversely, when I watch the 2300-2400 players on this site at Game in 3/0, I am struck by how they keep queens on the board and go for the knockout blow (checkmate).  

Largely because they don't have a "bonus" in their time controls, I believe.

Their "endgame knowledge" is still amazing to watch.  

Okay.

For becoming a grandmaster?

For getting to around FIDE 1500?

Capablanca in his book "My chess career" expresses his opinion as follows: (page 186) " The game might be divided into three parts i.e., the opening, the middle game, the endgame. There is one thing you must strive for, to be equally efficient in the three parts."

Many winning positions you'll find in endgame books feature equal material... while the positions a pawn or two down in such books are often draws 

Well, there you go. :)

I dont remember who said it, but there is a great quote:

A mistake in the opening, you can recover from.  A mistake in the middle game will hurt you.  A mistake in the end game will kill you.

The end game is the hardest, but also, the funnest (for me) part of the game to play. 

Yes, if you cant survive the opening, or middle game you will never make it to the end game.  But studying the end game will prepare you for the opening, and middle game.

Chess is chockablock with exceptions.  It ain't mathematics, Sherlock.  Get used to it.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/opening-theory-and-vegetarianism-are-both-overated

Yeah - and tell a 1000 player to study endgames and ignore the rest of the game until they're blue in the face - they won't even get out of the first 20 moves before hanging a piece or more!

Endgames are really valuable once you're doing well into the middlegame, but until you can survive it into that phase, it really doesn't matter how well you play the endgame - if you're down a piece against similar-strength opponents, even Capablanca would say you're pretty much lost. (Yes, I know there are piece-down winning exceptions, but they're rare.)

I think I'm just getting to that cusp of where endgames are becoming a significant factor in determining the outcome of the game, which means at 1600 blitz rating, I can survive most middlegames decently. For sure, I wasn't rated 1000 because I was screwing up the endgame, missing Lucena wins, etc. I knew all of those pretty well even at 1300 and could win 'em against the computer set at max strength because of advice like this thread, but it made little difference in my rating - I'd get routinely beaten in the opening and then the middlegame (yup, I was losing games right out of the opening a lot!).

Studying openings made WAYYY more of a difference in my game from 1100-1400 than endings. Not even close a comparison, honestly. Again, studying openings didn't mean I just memorized a few lines and called it a day - it was a lot of work, focusing on getting a playable white/black repertoire and knowing enough opening principles to survive strange sidelines. It's of course still a work in progress, but that's way more important for a 1100-1400 player than knowing Lucena, Philidor endgames (which are critical for any basic endgame player.)

Honestly, I think endgame study isn't really as important as playing endgames and learning from any mistakes you may have made.

For instance, I haven't really studied the Lucena or the Philidor's Mate or whatnot, but when you play enough games, you encounter these positions eventually, in one form or another. So when I finally did see them (and learn their names), I already knew from experience how to play them—no study required.

Though, I suppose one could say that playing and reviewing one's own games is a form of study itself. So perhaps I do believe in the value of endgame study after all—I just prefer to do it via playing and reviewing.

And yeah, don't neglect opening knowledge, either.

Watch GM Joey (one of the many strong opening players here on chess.com), for instance, play against someone who doesn't know how to handle the opening phase. The player will get blown off the board without even a chance of seeing the endgame.

I didn't change my mind. I said that I don't think endgame study is important, nor critical. No books required.

Though I do think playing and reviewing could be considered one valuable form of study.

These trainers are right, but to put it in perspective - they're almost always training serious tournament level chess players who are 1800+ or definitely aiming to soon go 1800+. 

If they were training kids rated <1000, they'd just given them the bare-bones essential checkmate endgames, and then do tactics, openings, middlegames, more than they do endgames.

For the vast majority of players on this website who are rated <1600, probably not serious hardcore tournament players (and 50% of whom are <1300 blitz here), spending a ton of time on endgames at the cost of tactics and middlegame is just not a good way to spend their limited study time. 

If you're an aspiring tournament player or willing to put in whatever work it takes to get as good as possible, then of course, endgame study is essential to hit those higher levels. But even then, it won't make a difference if you're getting lost positions right out of the opening or early middlegame.

Also note that I'm spending 50% of my time studying Dvoretsky's Endgame manual now. It's still too advanced for me, but it's probably necessary for me to go from 1500-1600 blitz upwards at this point. I wouldn't say that was true at 1100-1500.

I never said anyone was stupid or ignorant. Let's try to be adults here and not put words in each other's mouths.

From my first post in this thread, I said I'm beginning to find value in endgame study. But that's after reaching the 2100-2200 level.

Up until that point, I don't think it's really important. These positions I see in endgame discussions are stuff I find decent players tend to learn naturally, through trial, error, and review—which I find a more valuable teaching tool than simply receiving the explanations from a book.

But we all have our approaches and opinions. Whatever works for you, feel free to continue to do so.

+1

Capablanka didn't  study Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual, neither did Rubinstein. I value endgame books a lot but natural way through play and analysis gives some very valuable skills.

How do yo explain opening principles (center control, development, castling) with a series of endgame positions?

The first open tournament I ever won was due to my knowledge of the Lucena position.

In the last round, there were four of us, a master, an expert, and two A players fighting for first place. Incredibly, both A players reached won R + P endgames against their higher rated opponents. I knew the Lucena position and coasted to an easy win. The other A player didn't, and only drew.

As a result of that difference in knowledge, I won clear first. I also leapfrogged from 1899 to 2001 in the ratings. I never hit the 1900s until many years later when poor health affected my results.

That event reified the importance of endgames for me. I realise it also shows that one can become an A player without knowing the Lucena position. But life is much sweeter for the chess player who invests some time to learn the basic endgames.