Why start with endgame

A lot of stronger players say you should start with the endgame or that studying endgames will make you better.

but i disagree because if you can't survive the opening and middlegame then you will never make it to the endgame.

also why do amatuer people spend so much time studying openings? is that the most important part of the game and will it make you stronger player?  because GMs seem to just study openings all the time too.

I completely agree with your point of view. In my opinion, the middlegame is the most important and interesting part of a chessgames and deserves the most attention and time to study.

At GM level getting out of the opening is really important. At class level it's more about minimising blunders. 

The endgame is useful for helping your calculation and piece coordination. There are also some mating patterns you need to know to win. 

There's a lot of debate on the topic but I don't think openings are that important for a while. Class players are where they are not because of opening wrinkles but because they miss resources for themselves and their opponents. That ties into tactics. I think it's ok to learn a few moves from the openings you like and to learn some ideas from them but no more than that.

Sometimes you'll get into difficult positions despite making good or natural moves but that's a part of the game. Even GMs get into trouble in the openings sometimes. So it's important to go over your games and learn from those positions. Once you analyse alone, with other players or with an engine if possible you can look at databases and see what other players did in those positions and improve your play even more.

To answer the topic question, I don't necessarily believe, nor do I think many masters believe, that you should "start" with the endgame exclusively. However, along with tactical knowledge, your ability as a chess player will certainly correlate with your knowledge of the endgame, certainly much more so than your knowledge of the most topical lines of the most fashionable openings. Rook activity in the endgame, mined squares, fortresses in bishop endings-- these are just a few items that, in closely contested struggles, will cost you a hard-fought game if you are not aware.

Concerning the questioning of openings, I think the answer concerns a bit of ego. I think many amateur players fascinate themselves with the idea of being "tactical and dynamic like Kasparov" or "solid and positional like Karpov," and they view their openings as a sort of signature-- a mark of uniqueness. Of course, what is repeatedly stated over and over on just about any chess forum is the obvious: your opening preferences as an amateur matter little if your middlegame and endgame play are substandard. I cursed myself early in my chess-playing life by purchasing MCO-15 for my fourth chess text, and I was of course dismayed to see myself repeatedly developing a slight advantage out of the opening only for it to wither and die when I was unable to develop a plan for the position I'd worked to build.

There are a few reasons I can think of for studying the endgame as a beginner:

1. There are much fewer pieces on the board; the endgame teaches you to think about what each different figure can do and not do, and how they work together, without having to consider the tactical considerations posed by a full board.

2. The principles of the classic endgames are easy to learn - K+Q v. K, K+2R v. K, K+R v. K, K+2B v. K in ascending order of difficulty. And of course K+P(s) v. K; some basic knowledge of this ending will win you many games which would otherwise have been drawn, and draw many games which you would otherwise have lost.

3. Oft quoted: you'll often recover from a mistake in the opening or middle game, but hardly ever from a mistake in the endgame.

My rating leapt within a couple of weeks after reading the first few chapters of Silman's Complete Endgame Course; his approach is not to classify the chapters according to the type of endgame involved, but rather to present what he considers to be the required knowledge for each class of player, starting with absolute beginners and ending with masters. Highly recommended! He also takes the view that since so many players neglect the endgame, a little bit of work will go a very long way; this I think is the best reason for doing a bit of study.

PS I just saw your rating :) everything I wrote must be known to you, I'd be interested to hear your views on points 1-3, and why you don't consider them to be good reasons for studying the endgame as a beginner! ;)

During the middlegame, and even some openings, you need to constantly be analyzing possible endgames you or your opponent could liquidate into. If you don't know the evaluation or technique that's relevant for an endgame you can transition to, you have to just guess. Endgames allow you not only to play the endgames well, but to play the middlegame better too by knowing what you're heading for. 

Maybe you can offer your opponent the choice of losing a pawn, or retaining it but in doing so, heading towards an endgame in which you know that pawn won't mean anything. Maybe you have to choose whether to give up an exchange, where you'll likely draw (because you can still make a fortress), or head to an opposite color bishop ending, where you have the only winning chances. 

All of these choices only exist if you're aware of them, you can only make the choice intelligently if you can evaluate the consequences, and your results will only be better if you have the technique to execute them.

If you're strong in the endgame, you know what to aim for in the middlegame.

Also, there are typically more ways your opponent can go wrong in the endgame compared to the other portions of the game. 

To many good points for me to add anything meaningful. So +1 to them all.

"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 middle game and opening must be studied in relation to the end game."
(Capablanca)

There are many reasons why you should be good in endgames.
A game between two approximately equal players will normally be decided in an endgame. (Well, not between total beginners, but between stronger players)

If you are not good at endgames, you won't be able to evaluate a lots of endgame positions, or to evalute whether a queen exchange is good in the middlegame, therefore you may simplify into a losing position without realizing it.

Sometimes the simplest way to win a game is to simplify it into an endgame.

Sometimes you may save a game by going into a somewhat worse endgame and fight for a draw. For example in rook endings you have good chances to fight for a draw even if you are down a pawn or sometimes two, while in other endgames that is just losing. 

And there can be many other reasons. Endgames teach you a lot about chess, they are important.

"if you can't survive the opening and middlegame then you will never make it to the endgame." 

Yes, but if you don't know how to play endgames then there is no point in "surviving" the middlegame because you will lose anyway.
The middlegames are easier to play than the endgames.

"because GMs seem to just study openings all the time too."

GMs are already GMs. They mastered middlegames and endgames, and therefore they have nothing better to do than learn openings to get better position out of the opening. At their level, opening advantages matter, because they can keep them.

For weak players learning openings on a deeper level is useless. It is important to learn the basics middlegame plans and ideas related to your openings, because it helps you play the middlegame, and helps to play similar position well. And it saves a lot of time on the clock if you know what you are aiming for.

My endgame is terrible, but I have studied a bit and enjoy playing endgame scenarios with the computer. Because of this I have won many games despite going into the endgame with a lost position. I had a winning streak recently and about half my games were even in the opening, I blundered in the middle game, and my opponent made a losing blunder in the endgame that I was able to capitalize on due to my very slight skill with endgames.

I dont remember who said it, but there is a great quote that will answer your questions.

A mistake in the opening, you can recover from.  A mistake in the middle game will hurt you.  A mistake in the end game will kill you.

The end game is the hardest, but also, the funnest part of the game to play. 

Yes you are correct, that if you cant survive the opening, or middle game you will never make it to the end game.  But studying the end game will prepare you for the opening, and middle game.

Beginner studying opening because they are all taught the importance of tactics...tactics...tactics.  So naturally, every beginner thinks they are a tactical player, and it sounds really cool to be able to say that you know the Berlin defense 20 moves deep.  This is why things like the fried liver attack, halloween gambit, etc are so popular with beginners, and why you dont see them in GM games.

it was the soviets who first suggested to start with the endgame right? 

When it comes to chess you dont argue with the soviets

it is cause and effect.

if you can study all the effects (endgame)

then you can better prepare for the causes (openings/middlegame)

duh.

good point

you are very smart.

thank you for your help.  it was insightful.  i am going to get a book on endgames from my library.

thank  u very much benonidoni!!!!!!!

actually

i have been thinking that the original starting position is just one big endgame

you were very helpful in deepening my understanding of the game

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/opening-midlegame-endgame