Why study endgames first?

well i think its easier to understand a chess game if you start at the end and go backwards. Thats why i think in general its best to start with endgames and with tactics. 

Good luck with ur chess Bro

In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before everything else. For whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the opening and middle game must be studied in relation to the end game.                  CAPABLANCA

To improve at chess you should in the first instance study the endgame.  -  CAPABLANCA

The amount of points that can be gained (and saved) by correct endgame play is enormous, yet often underestimated by youngsters and amateurs.  -  EDMAR MEDNIS

endgames easier to learn than opening or middle game

Yes, Nimzo. And Lasker made similar recommendations. 

But then, if you read their books, they don't spend much space in the first few pages on the endgame. Capablanca's Primer, for instance, shows the basic mates, how to win with an extra pawn and then goes into the opening. Less than a third of his book is about the endgame.

 And perhaps the single greatest instruction manual of chess ever written, My System, starts with the center and develoment.

I agree with Hicetnunc's post. But humans have limited patience. Teach them what interests them. 

I use pawn endgames to teach calculation skills as well as to teach endgames. If you can analyse a pawn endgame well without moving the pieces, you can analyse just about any position! 

But then, if you read their books, they don't spend much space in the first few pages on the endgame. SmyslovFan

In that case, I recommend doing what they say, not measuring the amt of space they spent on endgames in their books. BTW My System is about various concepts and principles of chess strategy (inc one chapter on a few important endgame principles)  and Capa's Primer is a beginners book (if I recall correctly) and as such obviously can't just be all about endgames.

The fact that Capa didn't write any endgame books doesn't invalidate his advice IMHO, although his quote below is a little hard to take seriously nowadays (or probably even when he first said it)

Ninety percent of the book variations have no great value, because either they contain mistakes or they are based on fallacious assumptions; just forget about the openings and spend all that time on the endings.  -  Jose Capablanca

i think the approach of gradually learning (or teaching) a mix of opening, middlegame and endgame theory (and practicing it) - going for more and more advanced aspects of the game in each of these 3 parts as the student accumulates chess knowledge - is a good way to go

"The end game always has possessed, and probably always will retain, the peculiar affection of the Chess analyst. The greatly reduced number of pieces left on the board naturally provokes the reflection, that the field of observation being narrowed, the analyst has less chance of being mistaken in his calculations, and that therefore he can more easily attain some approximation to mathematical accuracy in his conclusions."
Jacob Lowenthal, The Chess Player's Magazine (1865) 

All good ideas and reasons to study the endgame first. Which should be studied first is another question.

Endgame technique must be learned and not just memorised...

i wondr if its a blitz thing. in blitz endgame knowledge could not mattr less. but in long games, endgame knowledge may make th difference between winning and losing.

I'm going to start quoting Estragon along with Capablanca when it comes to anymore debates or discussions about studying endgames!

most players of any ability end up in an endgame and to maximise their earlier good work need at least a knowledge of basic endgame principles and positions....endgame study is obviously essential...but I manage to play without study these days

most players of any ability end up in an endgame and to maximise their earlier good work need at least a knowledge of basic endgame principles and positions....endgame study is obviously essential...but I manage to play without study these days

i agree though i think learning involves a bit of memorization as well

There are a lot to learn in chess. Endgame is just one of them. I often played players who keep pushing his pawn to promotion or capture pawns to think that they have advantage with more pawns. I think they learn it from endgames that affect their games

Surely studying openings is more complicated than endgames since there are more pieces involved. To make things more complicated, openings have many variations. So, I wouldn't recommend studying openings first.

I would recommend to solve puzzles first so beginners can think 4 or 5 moves ahead. If they can think up to 10 moves ahead, the rating 1800 is quite achievable.

1800 players can think 10 moves ahead?

This is false. 

Many of the best blitz players were also the best endgame players. The more you know about the endgame, the better you can play when low on time. As Jonathon Speelman, one of the great endgame experts, said, if you know the endgame you can play well when short on time by following the rules. (Rules, such as rooks belong behind passed pawns.) In the endgame, the rules are correct about 95% of the time. 

It's no coincidence that players such as Fischer, Ulf Andersson, Tigran Petrosian, Anatoly Karpov and Jose Capablanca were among the best blitz players of their generations.

Oh, and Tetsuo, in many positions, 1800 rated players can easily think 10 moves ahead!  

It's easy to visualize 10 moves ahead by the time a player is rated 1800.

It's hard/impossible to see 10 moves of good quality ahead unless there are forcing moves or a very simplified position.

In most positions it's completely useless to look 10 moves ahead.

Right. It is embarrassing to lose to a player who cannot checkmate you in the middle of an empty board when he has two queens. In most cases, it should take no more than three moves (2 seconds).