Why Chess Endings are FAR MORE IMPORTANT than Chess Openings

I am living proof that the NM level can be reached without focusing more on endings than the other 2 phases of the game . I have focused the bulk of my chess study time on middlegames and openings with the least amount of time going to endings and this has resulted in the ending being my weakness when compared to the other two phases , most of my wins come in the middlegame and I try to play my games in such a way that a crisis is reached in the middlegame because at my age I no longer have the stamina/energy to play long drawn out endings anyway ...

Didn't you tell us that, while lacking an understanding of the value of endgames, you went very fast to around 1500 FIDE (in a matter of months) by studying mainly openings?

Take a look at John Emms' excellent explanation of Qc7 in the Sicilian Taimanov in his award winning book, The Sicilian Taimanov: Move by Move pages 9 and 10.

You can look that page up for free on amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1857446828/ref=s9_simh_gw_g14_i1_r?ie=UTF8&fpl=fresh&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=desktop-1&pf_rd_r=18NZEVS6WDBHZ573KMDP&pf_rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=2437869742&pf_rd_i=desktop

Of course, GM John Emms is probably wrong. He was merely an author of a book on the Sicilian Taimanov, but that's because he too has a poor understanding of the English language. 

Taimanov himself called the system with Qc7 the Paulsen System. He considered his own system to involve Nge7. But he was the one to advance the ideas of Qc7 which is why it's usually called the Sicilian Taimanov:

I am lost now. Do you suggest not to talk about opening principles at all because they have exceptions? Or you suggest to illustrate openings principles with examples from endgames because then problem of exceptions gets solved somehow?  Isn't it a somewhat trivial fact that general principles have exceptions?

Every book that discusses opening principles does so by showing opening examples (including Capablanca!).

For beginners endgame knowledge and tactics matters more than opening. Beginners like to always trade pieces(less complicated) and go to an endgame.

Well the endgames matter a lot. Chess is about knowledge without that endgame knowledge you draw a winning position or lose a theoretical drawn position in the end. There is nothing more frustrating than losing a game that you had the advantage from the opening to the middle game but only to lose it in the endgame.End game knowledge you can always use, but opening preparation can disappear the moment your opponent goes off book which what happens all the time.

You dont need to be good enough in openings to get an advantage, but it is fine if you are so good that you can solve the worst problems and go active into the endgame.

The OP's Question is answered today, by a GM on this site -- (i.e. that middlegame tactics and endgame knowledge should take precedence in your study plans)

https://www.chess.com/article/view/how-to-use-dynamic-diagonals

"After all, improving at chess is really about learning more patterns and then being able to put them into practice in the right circumstances."

People spend too much time reading opening books.

"If you want to play chess competitively, then you must develop an opening repertoire." - GM Patrick Wolff (1997)

"Yes, the opening is important, but other areas of chess are equally if not more important." - GM Ginger_GM (April 5, 2016)

"... 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)

This is what makes chess so interesting.  I made USCF A class on opening principles (no opening study) middle, and end game study.

Welcome to the thread blackavar. Lol. You should probably get some games in to keep your otb skills honed. Trust me, even when you're crushing the chess tempo tactics if you haven't played a real game in a while you'll often get smacked with something simple when you get back to it. I'm preparing for a tournament at the end of may. Not sure if I'll be able to go just yet but I want to be ready just in case, plus improving is always good. I'll be working on my openings, getting familiar with common structures that arise and thematic plans. I also have a tactics book I'm working through and will be working through multiple endgame tomes in the coming weeks if I have the time. I played in a couple of big class events recently and 1 thing that set me apart from my competitors was move speed and endgame calculations. Most of my wins were ground out in an endgame, despite me being a tactical player. A lot of those endings I gained an advantage beforehand but still had to convert the ending. Some of those endings I was dead lost and my opponent botched it. Having better technique in simple positions was key to those tournaments, at least for me.

Study endgames.  Exchange down to endgames.  Win the endgames.  Simple.

Unless your game is under 40 moves (which typically involves mistakes or technical errors) the endgame must be faced.  

Indeed, the endgame is where you get to inflict pain and suffering on your opponent.  As long as you can reach it, of course.

Here's a recent quote from an FM regarding same (for blitz games), FM @Testviking wrote -- "Study endgames. Exchange down to endgames. Win the endgames.  Cheers."

See also -- http://chess-team-viking-swe.blogspot.se/2012/11/begin-from-end.html

Once again, the average game between 1000-1400 players goes at least 37 moves. They are surviving the openings, and middle games. A large portion of those games are not trivially won at that point.

In other words, the endgame matters to everyone except perhaps the most basic beginner.

And if that beginner has a good teacher, he or she will learn basic endgames from the start!

Learning endgames doesn't have to feel like being forced to eat your spinach.

Yes.

The thing about playing your peers is, you tend to miss the same sorts of tactics and positional errors. So, perhaps unsurprisingly, games tend to stay even.

FWIW I'd break my time into something like 10%-20% tactics, and the rest analysis / review of middlegame positions. Whether it's from a middlegame book, game collection, or by playing practice games online.

Tactics are 100% necessary, but maybe only 20% sufficient. General analysis / calculation is the other 80%. Luckily it doesn't take hours a day to be in shape tactically. Even if you're really rusty, 3 months is a long time. Again FWIW, I'd say 30 minutes of tactics a day is enough.

My theory is that every level of player blunders if you put them under enough pressure. Even world champions. GM vs 1600, if the GM plays boring passive stuff, the 1600 may actually not miss any tactics!

So general understanding / being a well rounded player, is very important. Unless the player is very weak, tactical opportunities don't happen on their own.

I hope I'm wrong and you do well at your tournament :)

I see you say you'll be going through a few books. At least you're not doing tactics exclusively!

"If you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there." ~Lewis Carroll

To learn the basics of endgames is to learn the beginning of middle game planning. Capablanca's legendary endgame skill wasn't really due to his technique. Fischer once said that if Capa had really studied 200 rook endgames as he claimed, Capa studied the wrong ones! Capa made fewer technical errors than most of his contemporaries, but he was far from flawless. 

Capa's brilliance was recognising which endgame positions to head for long before his opponent was even thinking of the endgame! That is a skill that anyone would do well to possess.