Reb wrote:
No phase of chess is FAR MORE IMPORTANT , than the other two phases . Real talent in chess usually shows most in the middlegame though , the real " meat " of the game .
So True!
Why Chess Endings are FAR MORE IMPORTANT than Chess Openings
Sort:
Today I am learning Queen v Rook, Queen v Rook second rank defence and Queen v Rook third rank defence. So far its been very enjoyable.
Queen v Rook second rank defence
Diakonia wrote:
Reb wrote:
No phase of chess is FAR MORE IMPORTANT , than the other two phases . Real talent in chess usually shows most in the middlegame though , the real " meat " of the game .
So True!
I'd go so far as to argue that if you're losing most of your games right out of the opening or early middlegame (like losing entire pieces with no compensation), the ending is of LEAST importance to you.
And I'd say that most players <1100 rating fall into this category (if not a lot higher - even at 1500 blitz, I rarely win games outright from pure endgame play), which is nearly 50% of the players here. These folks have no business studying endgames outside the most super basic mates and KP endgames until they start surviving into to the endgame in the first place.
hhnngg1 wrote:
Diakonia wrote:
Reb wrote:
No phase of chess is FAR MORE IMPORTANT , than the other two phases . Real talent in chess usually shows most in the middlegame though , the real " meat " of the game .
So True!
I'd go so far as to argue that if you're losing most of your games right out of the opening or early middlegame (like losing entire pieces with no compensation), the ending is of LEAST importance to you.
And I'd say that most players <1100 rating fall into this category (if not a lot higher - even at 1500 blitz, I rarely win games outright from pure endgame play), which is nearly 50% of the players here. These folks have no business studying endgames outside the most super basic mates and KP endgames until they start surviving into to the endgame in the first place.
A coach told me that you can go for immediate results and study openings, or you can go for slow long term growth and start with endings.
Apr 7, 2016
0
#166
@Diakonia Well okay, but how good is this coach? You keep citing the way you teach your students and people who have taught you, but you are giving no information about the people involved. If you were being coached by a class player, that statement doesn't mean much. And if your students aren't improving (unless they're young kids- then they should be expected to improve at some rate even without coaching) then there's no value in what you've taught them. I'm not insulting anyone, I'm just saying that I'd like to know more information about the people you're referencing.
Apr 7, 2016
0
#167
Also, I'm getting a kick out of all of these people trying to say what's important for chess improvement when probably the vast majority of them haven't even gained as much as 100 elo points in the past three years. Just saying :P
Since some games are decided right out of the opening phase and even more are decided in the middlegame there are many games that dont even reach endings . This is a cold hard FACT . So anyone believing the endings are most important , when many games dont even have endings , are simply being foolish . If you get your Q trapped in the opening or get mated in the middlegame it doesnt matter if you can play endings like Capablanca ! 
dpnorman wrote:
@Diakonia Well okay, but how good is this coach? You keep citing the way you teach your students and people who have taught you, but you are giving no information about the people involved. If you were being coached by a class player, that statement doesn't mean much. And if your students aren't improving (unless they're young kids- then they should be expected to improve at some rate even without coaching) then there's no value in what you've taught them. I'm not insulting anyone, I'm just saying that I'd like to know more information about the people you're referencing.
Im just citing what worked for me, and how i teach. I am in no way saying its the best way. Its simply preference. Im sure if i was taught to start with openings i would be on the opening bandwagon.
All phases of the game are important. Study them all if you want to grow. Whichever method works for you and you enjoy it then carry on.
Reb wrote:
Since some games are decided right out of the opening phase and even more are decided in the middlegame there are many games that dont even reach endings . This is a cold hard FACT . So anyone believing the endings are most important , when many games dont even have endings , are simply being foolish . If you get your Q trapped in the opening or get mated in the middlegame it doesnt matter if you can play endings like Capablanca !
Yep, 100% true.
And to think you learn openings by studying endgames (as someone else posted above) is simply ridiculous. Let's be real here - I'm studying Dvoretsky's endgame manual, which is considered fairly advanced and has lots of 'late-middlegame' type endgame positions, and it has NOTHING to do with openings. None!
And yes, I've gained 200+ points in the past 2 years, and that was off a legit plateau at 1200, meaning I'm not some talent that plays like a 1800 and is just gaining rating points because I'm sandbagging my way up there.
And lastly - I study Dvoretsky now more because I enjoy it, as opposed to expecting highest yield for study time. For sure, I can raise my ratings here at my level faster by completely cutting out Dvoretsky (until later) studying tactics and basic positional strategy. I just happen to like the variety in my study, but if you told me I had to go out tomorrow and win a chess tournament with life-or-death stakes, I'd almost completely stop studying Dvorestky right now, and hammer tactics and positional middlegame strategy since that's what's driving my ratings improvement right now at 1500-1600 blitz level here.
jengaias wrote:
And to think you learn openings by studying endgames (as someone else posted above) is simply ridiculous. Let's be real here - I'm studying Dvoretsky's endgame manual, which is considered fairly advanced and has lots of 'late-middlegame' type endgame positions, and it has NOTHING to do with openings. None!
You think it's that easy?You think you will read basic endgames and from ignorant you will suddenly gain a grandmaster's understanding?Who said such a nonsense?
Basic endgames are the numbers.Don't expect to be a nuclear physicist by learning the numbers.Once you learn them you still have a long way to go.
They are only the first step in a long and difficult journey.
Duh, of course.
I never said you could be a GM without detailed study of endgames. And you def need good endgames to progress past the intermediate level.
But to overgeneralize and say endgames are the most important phase is just rubbish for most class-level players who are losing all their games in the opening and middlegame.
Apr 7, 2016
0
#173
@robbie, nice. I struggle in these types of winning positions. Which book are you following?
HolyKing wrote:
@robbie, nice. I struggle in these types of winning positions. Which book are you following?
Hi HolyKing, its not a book but a website, ill send you the link because sometimes chess.com can be funny about other websites and remove the URL :D
jengaias wrote:
hhnngg1 wrote:
But to overgeneralize and say endgames are the most important phase is just rubbish for most class-level players who are losing all their games in the opening and middlegame.
I never said that.
I said it's the most important phase to understand chess.
Playing against other clueless and not ever reaching an endgame is hardly an argument that proves that endgame study is not necessary.
Studying endgames doesn't offer fast results.That is sure.You must be determined and focused.If you are not , you better forget it.They will only be a waste of time.
Endgames teach you how to think, openings don't because simply put you are unable to fully understand most of the opening moves and you produce positions you can hardly understand.Endgames is not the only way.But anything you will understand with some endgame positions , will take you many months or years without them.For example , it only needs a few endgame positions for the kids to understand that there is no bad bishop in French defense while others with many years of tournament practice still don't comprehend that.
I never had any personal conflict with any of you.I tried to share some things I learned by watching a FIDE certified trainer teaching kids.He attended more than 12 months lessons(in total)in chess training(not chess , chess training , note that important difference).Here is the surprise.In all this training, openings have never been mentioned.Not even once any of his trainers said anything about openings.All of them talk about endgames , middlegame and master games with endgames taking almost 70% of the time.
Some of you think you know better than him.I respect that but allow me to have my doubts.
I dont remember who said it, but there is a great quote that will answer your questions.
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.
Apr 7, 2016
0
#176
The average game lasts 39 moves. For novices rated 1000-1400, that average is 37 moves. Even novices reach the endgame regularly.
I have known several masters who use their superior endgame skill in the opening. They do it in two distinct ways. If you are confident that your endgame skill is considerably better than your opponent's, you can use the endgame to
- play opening gambits and middle game sacrifices more confidently because you know that even if you enter the endgame a pawn down, you can still save the game.
- play solid lines confidently knowing that if you reach an even endgame, you will still have excellent winning chances. Carlsen does this quite a bit
- choose winning plans in the middle game because you know what sort of endings are won. This was Capa's preferred method
Learning the endgame helps players perform better in the opening and middle game!
The endgame is extremely important, even for novices!
Novices are hanging stuff WELL before 37-moves. Their games might last 37 moves, but they've made full-out resignable mistakes in the majority of those games well before 37 moves.
They are NOT playing near-equal endgames, or even piece-down endgames with drawing opportunities. And even if there were piece-down drawing chances, they'd need endgame ability of 2000+ to pull it off.
Endgames are extremely important - for better than novice level players.
The whole concept of playing a middlegame into a winning ending (aside from the most obvious simplications) is at minimum an advanced intermediate chessplaying ability.
Study endgames. Exchange down to endgames. Win the endgames. Very simple.
Along the way exchange queens and knights -- that takes the bulk of complexity out of the middlegame, regardless of the opening played.
Pal Benko was feared (in the endgame), you can be too.
It's relatively easy to exchange everything off. Then play for win, regardless of the position. Just Do It. Like Nike sporting goods. 
http://www.amazon.com/From-Opening-Endgame-Edmar-Mednis/dp/1857441249
http://www.amazon.com/From-Middlegame-Endgame-Everyman-Chess/dp/1857440609/ref=pd_sim_14_7?ie=UTF8&dpID=51SVe0qBGEL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR97%2C160_&refRID=0GVXT7KDA294F3PRHK5S
GM Nesis also has a pair of books on Tactical Chess Exchanges, and Exchanging to Win in the Endgame. Both are great reads.
No phase of chess is FAR MORE IMPORTANT , than the other two phases . Real talent in chess usually shows most in the middlegame though , the real " meat " of the game .