Why Chess Endings are FAR MORE IMPORTANT than Chess Openings

+1

But you don't hope to improve, you choose to improve.

And despite what Capa said, it's fraught with danger to assume that what one of the most talented players of ALL TIME for whom almost everything in chess came completely naturally, will work for you. 

Capa pretty much never had to struggle with losing a lot of games at patzer level (us) in the opening and middlegame, so of course he would advocate mastering the endgame.  

Go look at games of any player here <1300, and they're making so many mistakes before the endgame and often losing games right out of the opening that you better at least fix most of those glaring errors before even touching the endgame. 

I do think all players need to learn the basic checkmates, basic pawn opposition things, but studying the endgame gets difficult - FAST and is NOT for beginners. Something as simple looking as 2 pawns vs 1 pawn is hard enough in certain common setups that IMs have screwed it up in serious tournament play. 

I hear this quote from Capa all the time, and I was one of those who took it to heart and tried studying the endgame when I was a 1100 level player here. It was some of the worst advice ever - I still lost ALL my games well before the endgame, and my rating went nowhere.

I'm stronger now, but I'm JUST starting to get to the point where 'real' endgame study is making a difference in my game. That's like 1500+ blitz level. If you're under that, you'll be making game-losing errors well before the endgame in most cases. Heck, even now, when I play 10-min+ games, the (vast) majority of the games are decided well before the endgame. At my level (1550 blitz, which is about 1700ish UCSF equivalent per the 2015 ratings survey) I can see how at this level endgame study will likely be the big factor in advancing my rating from here, but I definitely would say it would NOT be the case in my ratings under this level.

This is coming from someone who adores endgame study - I've been doing Dvoretsky's Endgame manual pretty seriously now, playing out EVERY position against the engine (it's slow going-  gonna take me years to get through the book, and I'm sure I'll forget a lot of it on the way!)

All those Russian trainers who like Capa, say 'master the endgame first' are almost all training players talented enough to have a baseline of 2000+, on talent alone. Those players don't struggle like we do in losing games in the  opening/middlegame, nor did Capa. You're fooling yourself if you think most people of middling patzer level talent (like myself) can follow the same road and just focus on the endgame at the cost of the opening/middlegame where they're losing the vast majority of their games.

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!

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

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.

@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.

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 !  

^^100% agree

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.  

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.

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.

@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

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.

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!

Completely agree with the3 points SmyslovFan has put forward.

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.