Whenever I ask a question about openings, people immediately answer like this and this is not useful. My answer to them is: Go win a strong tournament with 1.h4, then. I study openings with general middle game and endgames arising from the opening. Who would study an endgame if they won't see it in practice ? For example, Boris Avrukh's books on Grunfeld Mostly analyze till 20-25 Moves and sometimes end games.
Also, analyzing and studying openings is FUN and this is my main reason for studying openings . Other reasons are: Be in your repertoire while getting your opponent out of book ( especially 3.Bc4 Vienna ) . Some quote from
chess.com forums:" If you are booked up X moves into an opening, then add another move to your repertoire, now it's X+1 moves, your rating Y will increase Z points" since you prevented mistakes and blunders and even inacurracies in another move. People don't understand this and keep saying " Don't study openings "
Ok, Magnus won the World title by NOT studying openings and playing 1.h4 .
If you want to become a world champion, yes, you're right, you'll probably have to study some openings at some point.
If you want to progress beyond a 1600 rating, no, openings are not something that are that important.
Also, not studying openings and opening every game with h4 are hardly the same thing. Knowing that h4 is a bad move is studying openings like knowing that you have to turn the key to start a car is learning to drive. Which is to say, it's not that at all.
You have to study the resulting middlegames which stem from your openings including some theory. Hundreds of training games.
If you're familiar with them like a fish in the water you can compete well, even having decent games with master players. I had the best results with that technique.
Btw, I've chosen lines which were not too "theoretical", this seems crucial too me.
"analyzing and studying openings is FUN and this is my main reason for studying openings "
If you have fun studying Marshall's Gambit or Traxler up to move 30, then by all means do so.
It however you want to become better at chess, then that is not the best way: for the same effort you get much better studying endgames and middle game tactics.
I wouldn't overdo endgame training as a beginner. The basics are mandatory of course.
A lot of "rules" are exactly the opposite in middlegames and endgames (say one example, drawishness of bishops of opposite colors), always remember that.
Sometimes I play three long tournaments in a row and didn't have a single endgame at all...
PS: I will never understand that if you learn openings by heart you are considered a memorizing fool, but if you learn endgame motifs by heart (memorizing is a big part!) you are considered having reached master level.
Old myths die hard, especially in chess.
If a FIDE 1270 rated player memorizes Marshall Gambit & Traxler up to move 30 and Grünfeld up to move 25 that seems overdoing.
Most of the FIDE 1270 rated players come not even near the mandatory endgame basics.
Understanding endgames makes you a better player, even if no endgame turns up. A normal chess game between evenly matched opponents regularly ends in an endgame. If you play tournaments without endgames that usually means that your opponents are either much stronger or much weaker than you. In open tournaments where you get paired up/paired down that is common indeed.
The last two games I posted here were against equal rated opponents and were won seemingly effortlessly in 24 and 25 moves... and the game I played before as well, and all games in the league and the tournament before. Equal opponents, not even close to an endgame.
lichess.org/forum/game-analysis/biggest-otb-success-for-sarg0n-ever#1I would like to point the focus on solid lines and not too theoretical, that's my recommendation. Bb5 Sicilians as my favorite example.
PS: a by far sufficient endgame knowledge is given in de la Villa: "100 endgames you must know". One should take the one or other lesson there too because it is fun as well and improves your strength.
The way of thinking is the most important not the stage of game.
The case is not about what is important or what is not important.
you have to improve your chess game balancing Opening , Middle Game , Endgame in same time.
and keep in mind there is no limit for improvement do not avoid a stage of game.
I believe in opening is the very important but not the most, studying any opening with understanding its strategical points will improve you planning and your chess eye, but usually if you just memorize opening lines without deeply understanding you can face a position very hard to think or you can not evaluate at least right, this book line from try and error big database of games which shows the best move from opening , Grandmasters understanding this lines so they play it well , but just memorizing it will drive you to a hall.
Studying tactics is the most important will improve you way of thinning and calculating next moves , which is a key point in any stage of chess, and later will made you avoid opening traps and understanding tactics of endgame.
Endgame which seems simple with small number of pieces which Indeed affected by any small inaccuracy , the true is endgame is complex and highly tactically sharp.
The way of thinking is the most important not the stage of game.
Thanks.
Since you are not in Turkey, you can't know people generally play openings which are less known, and don't know anything about some openings which are not usually seen in Turkey, like Grunfeld.
The most annoying part is London or 3.g3 Vienna players. They are annoying.
Examples of rare openings in Turkey:
A man about 50-60 years old plays the Ponziani as his main opening but sometimes don't play it.
A group of people playing 2.e5 against French.
I saw 3.d3 against Petroff but he didn't go for a KIA.
A guy plays the Torre Attack.
Another Guy plays 2.c4 against Sicilian
2.b3 against French.
2.Nc3 3.Bb5 against Sicilian ( including myself )
You must be booked up at least 15 moves to not to fall into a trap.
Endgames generally simplify to pawn endgames.
I'm playing for 5 years but never saw a R+P+K vs R+K endgame in my about 250 games and also my games on lichess .
