Why are endgames underrated?

Quoting a few words the from the book Endgame Strategy by Mikhail Shereshevsky
"It is no secret that, in the preparation of young players, many teachers and trainers devote more attention to the study of numerous opening systems and the forms of middlegame resulting from them. The endgame is always allotted very little time"
And i guess this is absolutely right.

If I were to tell about myself, my ratings are 2000+ mainly because of the fact that I am very efficient at endgames, since my openings are not that strong.

I have seen many 2300+ players who are not able to win a close game, once it has entered the ending stages.
There are a few basic principles of the endgames, but according to me, the most important one is the centralization of the king.

Once again, taking a few words from Endgame Strategy,
" In the opening and the middlegame, the king endeavors to find a safe shelter and to observe the battle from afar, without as a rule taking any direct part in it, but in the endgame, when the probability of the mating attack is greatly reduced, the king is transformed into an active fighting unit."
(Many players may contradict the above statement.) However, one should wait for the right time to centralise his/ her king, and not hurry.

Lets take a look at an endgame, once again taken from Endgame Strategy, where a player centralises his king too early, and manages to draw a winning game.

Fyederov vs Chernikov

https://lichess.org/editor/3n3r/ppN1p1kp/4p1pb/4N3/8/4P2P/PP4P1/3R2K1_w_-_-_0_1

1 Kf2 Nc6
2 Nxc6 bxc6
3 Rc1

Fyederov won the c pawn, but black gained the opportunity to activate his rook, and in the end, he gained a draw.

However, in the above positon, White had the possibility of an elegant 3 move manoeuvre which would have tied the opponent hand an foot.

1 Ng4 Nc6
2 Rf1 Nd8
3 h4
And Black is hopeless.

White plays 4 Rf2, and takes his king to the Q- side, winning.
The position demanded thinking in terms of schemes, and the centralization of the king should have been deferred for the moment.

The initiative is necessary in the endgame, the value of pawns becomes way more than what it was earlier, and one more important thing, two bishops are way more stronger than two knights in the endgame, but a queen and a knight are stronger than a queen and a bishop.

Also, referring to endgames, Byelavyenets has said
" If there is a possibilty of advancing two squares or one, advance it first one square, look carefully around, and only then advance it a further square"

Hope you enjoyed the post. Also, i would strongly recommend you to buy the book Endgame Strategy by Mikhail Shereshevsky.