Yes I believe study of the end game first is more valuable than study of openings. True if you know a numerous amount of openings and have a good grasp on all the different lines of play in them you will be able to beat up on unskilled players all day long with quick mating attacks and sneaky traps that they are not aware of. When you sit down to play a game against a player who is very skilled, chances are he knows enough about openings and mid games to force an end game. If you are lacking in preparation for an end game you will more than likely lose. Although don't totally neglect openings and mid games, you need to know them well enough to not fall for any of those quick mating attacks and traps found in a lot of openings. Study them well enough so you can force an end game,if you know more than your opponent about the end game you will be in your comfort zone and he will be sweatin bullets.
Why you should learn endgames before openings
I feel middlegame study is more important at first since most of the ideas in endgames (rooks belong on the seventh rank, bishops are better when they are on the other colour to the pawns) are even more useful, and even more easily demonstrated, in middlegames. Naturally you will eventually need to learn how to calculate endgames: but only when you and your opponent are strong enough to narrow the margin of error. If you study endgames as endgames you are too vulnerable to the same trap found in opening study: remebering the moves but not the meaning. One example is that it is probably not a good idea to remeber every move in a Knight and Bishop against lone King mate - instead remember that the Knight and Bishop co-operate better when place on the same colour.
It did matter. As a higher graded player with more experience you should have won, especially as white. It will matter even more in a few years when he develops his game more and doesn't allow you back into a technically lost game. 
I think openings are important, and if you master those then middle games become easier and in a lot of cases you won't have to resort to the endgame. Endgames are important to know because you will always encounter them sooner or later though.
You shouldn't feel a little guilty about being pleased with yourself, you drew from a position that looked bleak! The boy will be happy to get a draw against you... and all is well! 
I don't think you can control guilt so much though, it's more a thing you have to fight and counter-balance with other thoughts.
Anyway, thanks for posting, was an interesting read.
Great post.
That's why I can't come to those games. The 7 year old would SMOKE me.
Studying the Endgame is THE most effective way to improve your chess. I am currently studying Winning Chess Endings by GM Yasser Seirawan, and I can tell you right now that my chess has seen dramatic improvements; and I'm not even finished yet!
A mastery of the Endgame is vital for this simple fact: When you master the Endgame, you understand the various positions that will result in a win for you, a draw, or a loss. By playing your middlegame with the intent of gaining a passed pawn, for instance, you can work towards those endings that will result in wins, and avoid the losses. Thus, your Middlegame plans are based on your Endgame goals, which meand that your Middlegame skills will improve because of longer-ranged planning. In addition, as your Middlegame skills improve, you will be better able to choose those Openings that give you the kind of Middlegame you are comfortable with. Thus, improving the Endgame improves your entire game!
Endgames are not only for those who enjoy positional play, however. They must also be mastered by Tacticians and Attackers. In fact, the Endgame is one of the most tactically ripe phases in the whole game. Positional players, however, will undoubtably be reaching the Endgame more often, so it is doubly important for them to study this vital phase.
Oh yeah, Endgame study can be fun! You just need the right author. (Seirawan!!)
Wow, that was epic.
If the bishop was on h4, then there would have been no saving move. If, say, 7...h6 8.Bh4 had been played, then 8...Nxd4 would have to be met with 9.Qxd4, as 9.Bxd7+ loses a piece: 9...Nxd7 10.Qxd4 e5.
There is one master game like this that I know:
Really interesting read. I think I'm so concerned with messing up my opening that I never even stop to think about the endgame. Time to fix that asap :)
I think the best way to appreciate endgames is to strengthen your nerves during the openning and middle phases. WORD OF WARNING
: Easily said not easily done!
Was this an opening issue or a tactical one? Was it a tactical blunder or a mental one? I think more importantly a player should study in such a way that no one thing is ignored. You need tactics, openings, endgames, all of it.
Entertaining story. I got beat by a lower rated 9 year old. Outplayed him the whole game and was working on my win when I dropped a rook to a tactic. To his credit he saw the combination instantly. After the game he commented that the endgame was drawn (I was a rook down) and I showed him he was in fact winning easily :)
Mine was more of a mental error, thinking I was just going to push him around after I got a comfortable position. Maybe in your game his fast playing and fidgeting got you to play quickly too? If these kids know anything it's tactics! Good job pulling out the draw... a slightly less painful lesson maybe, but I don't think the problem was your opening.
...or, "How some basic knowledge saved me from being humiliated by a seven-year-old."
He was blasting out the moves, and I was clearly not paying as much attention as I should have been. There, right in front of an adoring crowd of non-chessplayers, I dropped a piece. I think some of them, sensing my tension, wanted to clap and pat him on the head."In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before anything else; for whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middlegame and the opening must be studied in relation to the endgame." --Capablanca
The air was buzzing slightly as I walked into the bookstore café the other night. This was odd--I've been playing chess there for a couple of years and have never known it to buzz. The cause wasn't difficult to spot: a seven-year-old boy was battling one of the adult players in my blitz club; what's more, he was winning.
The boy, whom I later discovered is the kindergarten champion of New England, is actually a delightful little kid, and his father/coach seemed a good sort of guy. But let's face it--even if he's the next Bobby Fischer, losing to someone in the first grade is going to leave some kind of emotional wound.
My first two five-minute games against him were straightforward: first I played the black side of a boring French and he flagged; in the second, I demolished him with a Grand Prix Attack (but not without some excitement). Right now I'm the better player, but clearly within 8-12 months he may be stronger than I can ever be. But I'll worry about that later. The real drama came in our third game, after he asked to reset the clocks to 15 minutes.
I played white against his mainline Sicilian, and things were going swimmingly. Then I made a grievous, head-slapping error.
I sat and thought for three or four minutes as the boy giggled. I considered the endgame, and concluded that I just might eke out the draw. At least one of black's d-pawns is mine, and I thought it likely I could scoop up another along the way. With the right kind of simplification, I reasoned, there's a slim chance I might pull it off. So I played on.
By the late middlegame, the picture had changed considerably. I was still down a piece for a pawn, but the biggest development was that the boy had exchanged his bishop for my knight--a definite plus for my endgame prospects. Moreover, I'd just chased his N to a8, giving me time to get my king into the center.
The clock ticked on, and in a sudden flash my opponent traded his N for my two remaining pawns. The position we were left with was a dead R v R+P draw anyway (though perhaps only I could see it for what it was), but then he did something very odd:
It was clear to me that he was hoping to simplify down to a basic K+P v K ending, but at no point until the very end did he see that he'd backed himself into a stalemate situation. My last words to him as he and his father packed up to go were "rook pawn."On the drive home I felt a little guilty about being so pleased with myself. At various points in the game I'd made endgame-oriented choices based on experience, which is something that he hasn't yet had time to acquire. But he had me--a higher-rated, adult player--lying there at his mercy, and he didn't have the tools to finish me off. The seven-year-old whipped me in the opening, but did it matter?