Why do they say study the endgame first?

Why do they say study the endgame first? Is it because it builds your calculating power or because it's the last stage of the game.

Which endgame books have you studied? I'm currently going through Jonathan Hellsten Mastering Endgame Strategy.

no bobbytalparov that's the obvious answer. I was wondering if there was a deeper reason why they say that.

I think it's because it improves your calculation ability

For a rank begginner--one should study the very simple endgames first

 such as how to mate with and king and queen vs a king and how to mate with a king and rook vs a king.

and a few other very simple endgames.

 All of this should take only a few days and then you can learn other things about chess.

This is taught first as it is very easy to learn.

Disagree with this. Most games are lost in the opening or early middlegame. 

I think it is just because in the endgame, there are very few pieces on the board, so it is easier for beginners to focus on learning strengths and weaknesses of individual pieces. Starting from the opening, it looks like a mess, 8 pieces + 8 pawns on each side - very confusing. Look, instead, at the endgame R+K vs P+K - and each piece's role becomes immediately clear and obvious.

Go through the typical endings with different pieces and pawn structures - and then it will be easier to apply the knowledge of elements to the whole game. Much like with language: we don't start learning the language from complex sentences, we start with learning the sounds, then simple words and phrases, then we gradually build on top of it - eventually, sounds and words become a part of the greater whole.

Right on! You are very correct!

I have to remember to

... to ask my wife what she thinks.

If you make a mess of the opening, your end-game isn't going to matter much since it will already be lost. Studying end games is like studying what things would be like if Hillary Clinton won or what the world would be like if we had two suns. Since chess has infinite moves the chance that an end-game would be the same as one in a book is extremely unlikely. Which means it's a waste of time.  

So much for beginnings don't matter, and by the way my wife agrees with pawn8888.

A former coach summed it up this way.  

Endings are the foundation.

Middlegames are the walls.

Openings are the roof.  

It doesnt matter how sturdy, well made, beautiful, solid, etc. the roof is if the walls and foundation cant support it.  

And when building a house, where do they start?

When you learn your endgames, you don't just learn how to win a won position. You also learn to recognize when you can simplify a favorable position into a winning endgame, or an unfavorable position into a draw.

In my view, this is perhaps the biggest benefit you get from knowing your endgames.

Other than it's use in learning calculation and planning in it's simplest forms, I always had a theory that it didn't matter that much. A lot of those guys that said that back in the day were in the Russian chess school so even if they didn't learn endings first it wasn't like they weren't going to receive the training anyway. Maybe endings really are objectively best to learn but for those guys it was just academic.

While I don't think endings are useless knowledge I rarely get any use out of all but the most basic ones that everyone knows. I've never had to win a Lucena or Philidor position in my entire life in blitz or OTB. I don't even know what they are. The most complicated ending I've ever played is probably K+Q vs. K+P and even that is just a matter of either knowing the pattern or the pawn just being on an unlucky square.

A long time ago I got a K+N+N+5p vs. K+Q ending and managed to somehow not win that because of blunders. I doubt all the endgame theory in the world would've saved that game. And even so, how many amateur players actually study things like fortresses?

Endgames are knowable and understandable.

I don't know who said that beginners should first learn endgames and then work backwards( perhaps capablanca said it). But, he was totally wrong. I think beginners should not waste their time learning endgames(except perhaps the most basic like k vs R+R or K vs Q+R. I think players below 1400 should not delve into endgames because those players would be far better served learning openings or practising tactics. The endgames rarely decide the outcome in <1400 games. Even if some games are lost due to poor endgame technique. Its better than losing lot of games in opening or middle game. Some are saying that endings are easy to learn because there are few pieces. But that's again a wrong view because as the pieces become lesser, chess becomes a game of squares and tempos. These things are obviously harder for beginners to understand than basic middle game combinations. Endgames start becoming from 1400 onwards. Until then, players should forget about endgame theory. They should focus on simple ideas in endgames, like checkmate(using queen and rook) and stopping the opponent king from getting into the game by building a firewall using queen or rook.

There have been some club-level players I've known who said their rating improved after studying the endgame because they achieved a better understanding of how the pieces work together.