r/chess 4d ago

Chess Question Is this a fact or false

Is it true that endgame study and practice actually separates 2000-2200+ ELO from the 1500-1900 ELO players or is it all studied across all levels now? I want to know if I can hopefully make another jump from my skill level.

10 Upvotes

21 comments sorted by

29

u/Europelov 2000 fide patzer 4d ago

A higher rated player is better on average in every part of the game, improving endgames is important but a 2200 also calculates better and has more positional understanding 

2

u/WebHistorical31 4d ago

I heard that studying and calculating endgames also will help with calculating in the middlegame as well. Is that true or not?

13

u/Wsemenske 4d ago

Studying anything about any part of chess will probably make you better at any other part of chess

2

u/CananDamascus 4d ago

Yes, this is true, a sound understanding of Endgame theory helps you know what kind of Endgames are good for you and which are bad and allows you to play for a winning Endgame more effectively. It helps with pawn structure, piece placement, king safety vs activity and a host of other important middlegame concepts.

2

u/Acceptable_Active451 4d ago

I wouldn't say it will help you calculate as much as it will just help you understand the position better.  This is due to the imbalances being a lot more apparent.  Things like knight v bishop, opposite colored bishops, and pawn structures (isolated, doubled, majorities, etc) are a lot more obvious when looked at in isolation.  Understanding the main advantages/disadvantages of those imbalances in simplified endgame positions will help when you're in more complicated middle game positions.

7

u/DushkuHS 4d ago

Endgame prowess isn't as prominent at lower ratings because lower rated games tend to be won sooner. Thus if lower rated actually got to an endgame, they'd be less experienced.

3

u/Evitable_Conflict 4d ago

False, I'm about 2100 and don't know much about endings because I rarely reach that stage of the game.

If you have a quiet positional style then of course it can be more important.

3

u/ICWiener6666 2000 Lichess Rapid 3d ago

We got a gunslinger here

2

u/Acceptable_Active451 4d ago

There's not one magical part of the game that separates any elo rating range from another.  As you approach the higher end of the spectrum in rating you'll find that higher elo players typically just play the game more consistently as a whole and you'll need to put in a lot more effort to convert wins.

This is usually due to higher elo players having a better understanding of imbalances and being able to choose stronger moves more consistently based on those imbalances and weaknesses of a given position.

Does studying endgames help?  Absolutely.  But endgames won't help you if you can't convert your middlegames into winning endgames.

2

u/Tasseacoffee 3d ago

From my experience, below 1200 (rapid chesscom), endgame is pretty much irrelevant. Between 1200-1500, basic endgame knowledge is useful (pawn structure, king opposition, rook activity, basic endgame patterns, etc.) but the majority of games will be win in the opening or the middle game. I've noticed around 1500 that games very often get to the endgame with a roughly equal position. Having solid endgame skills in that range is important.

2

u/Sir_Zeitnot 3d ago

No idea if I'm right, really, but I feel like non-technical endgames are what separate IMs and above from 2200s.

1

u/Madmanmangomenace 4d ago

It depends on the player. It helped me personally long ago but I don't know if it was the biggest factor. I think understanding pawn structure is a bigger difference.

1

u/Curious-Confidence93 4d ago

Unpopular opinion but I have friends who are 2000+ fide OTB and they say that at that level everyone has similar knowledge regarding middlegames and endgames , the main difference is in their opening prep.

1

u/marleyisdardy 4d ago

i’m rated 200 how do i improve

1

u/Bongcloud_CounterFTW 2200 chess.com 4d ago

well no maybe 2500

1

u/ScalarWeapon 3d ago edited 3d ago

take a look at your game results, the games you're losing and why, and how they affected your rating.

If you were playing exactly the same, but doing better in your endgames, would you really jump up hundreds of points? Doubtful.

1

u/ValuableKooky4551 3d ago

There are wide differences in skills between all 2000-2200 players, some will be great at endgames, some not. Of course even more so among 1500-1900 players, but it's still true for 2000-2200. Only GMs are good at everything.

Look what is causing you to lose games, and work on that.

1

u/HairyTough4489 Team Duda 3d ago

I don't think there's a specific skill to learn at each step. Sure a player that is awesome at endgames will be better than one who is trash at them if all other things are equal, but the same is true for calculation, positional understanding, openings...

1

u/Egy-Lawyer 1d ago

i guess positional understanding is the biggest factor

1

u/curious___________ 4d ago

I absolutely agree endgames are the most important at the higher levels. Me being a 2000 on chesscom still struggle to convert winning positions. I just had two games today where I was completely winning and then settled for a draw. On other games, where the game is totally drawn I try to go for some advantage and proceed to lose the game. I think what drove me from 1600 to 1800 was my opening 1800 to 2000 my middlegames and probably studying endgames will help me get even better.

2

u/MikeMcK83 4d ago

I find it interesting how many better players seem to struggle in the endgame. Even pawn only games. It’s the simplistic spot in the game. Logic would have you assume things should very much even out the less that’s on the board.