Answers.Body: <p>Anand's problem was mainly psychological. Anand is a world class endgame player, but he made some careless mistakes.</p>
  
  <p>You can't really be considered a strong middlegame player if you have no endgame concept. Recognizing favorable endgames while calculating variations in the middlegame is part of being a strong middlegame player. But perhaps some players don't know how to proceed once they transition to that endgame? If that's the case, I would favor the stronger endgame player to win.</p>
  
  <p>Obviously endgame skill is more valuable to have, it serves as the backbone for the opening and middlegame. Imagine a so-called "Strong" middlegame player who knows how to exchange into a favorable endgame, but has no confidence in his endgame skills?</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-12-03T02:17:46.117Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-06-12T19:44:44.847Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-06-12T19:44:44.847Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Sunny
Answers.Body: <p>"What are the odds of a middle game player defeating an endgame player?"</p>
  
  <p>Well, given the Kasparov-Karpov match history, I'd say, "Pretty Good!"</p>
  
  <p>Seriously, the answer is less about phases of the game and more about the players themselves. The "endgame player" has to be able to survive the best shots of the "middlegame player" before the endgame even arrives.</p>
  
  <p>In the case of Anand-Carlsen, I really don't think second-guessing Anand's match preparation means anything. From where I sat, Carlsen would have won, no matter Anand's preparation. He's simply the better player, and while short matches like the current WC events allow greater probability for randomness to elevate the lesser player, it wasn't enough to save Anand.</p>
  
  <p>Just like Fischer wasn't going to be beaten by any of his elders, and Karpov, and Kasparov, Carlsen is going to sit in that seat until one of his generation, or the next, rises up (Caruana, perhaps?) to unseat him.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-11-29T17:25:11.580Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-11-29T17:25:11.580Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Arlen
Answers.Body: <p>I would say that a strong middle game player would understand the middle game enough to know that the particular stage sets up the middle game. For example, simple things like pawn islands, doubled up pawns, bishops, pawn structure, and backward pawns are things that good middle game players will look for. Thus, even if the good endgame player gets the game to the endgame, the middle game player would already have an advantage. Seems to me that the middle game player has considerable better chances.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-11-30T04:49:38.507Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-11-30T04:49:38.507Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: CognisMantis
Answers.Body: <p>I think it would be wrong to say that Carlsen as a middle game player is weaker than Anand. Carlsen is a quite strong middle game player, and the reason why he was eager to play end games was that he was getting minor advantage for his pieces in the middle games. He is the strongest player in the world, and having almost 100 points difference before the match was the indicator of the difference between Carlsen and Anand.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-12-06T09:36:49.730Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-12-06T09:36:49.730Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Kanan Farzali
Body: <p>I recently asked this question: <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/4155/why-anand-and-carlsen-insisted-on-playing-the-same-opening-defense">Why Anand and Carlsen insisted on playing the same opening/defense</a></p>
  
  <p><strong>FM Rauan Sagit</strong> answered: </p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>In my view, in terms of opening preparation, the Anand team failed to
    obtain middle game positions that suited Anand's style. In general, I
    think that Anand should have aimed for long middlegames with most
    pieces intact. While Carlsen should have aimed for long endgames with
    most pieces exchanged off the board. From this point of view, Carlsen
    got his types of positions, while Anand failed to get his. This can
    partially be explained by the chosen opening systems. Additionally, I
    think that Anand should not have willingly exchanged queens in a
    single game.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>That got me thinking, when a strong endgame player faces a strong middlegame player, does the latter stand a chance?</p>
  
  <p>The endgame player would force the opponent into exchanging pieces and there's nothing you can do about it simply because he doesn't care about his pieces, just like what happened in the championship match,  am I right? What are the odds of a middlegame player defeating an endgame player?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-12-03T02:14:03.647Z
Comments.Text: If endgame player exchanges no matter what he/she will end up in much worse endgame, and they can still lose. Regarding Anand-Carlsen, I don't think Anand had much of chance, given the way Carlsen was playing lately.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Akavall
Tags: <theory><endgame><middlegame>
Title: Endgame player vs middlegame player: Is the result inevitable?
ThreadText: # Endgame player vs middlegame player: Is the result inevitable?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2013-12-02)
  
  I recently asked this question: [Why Anand and Carlsen insisted on playing the same opening/defense](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/4155/why-anand-and-carlsen-insisted-on-playing-the-same-opening-defense)
  
  **FM Rauan Sagit** answered:
  
  > In my view, in terms of opening preparation, the Anand team failed to
  > obtain middle game positions that suited Anand's style. In general, I
  > think that Anand should have aimed for long middlegames with most
  > pieces intact. While Carlsen should have aimed for long endgames with
  > most pieces exchanged off the board. From this point of view, Carlsen
  > got his types of positions, while Anand failed to get his. This can
  > partially be explained by the chosen opening systems. Additionally, I
  > think that Anand should not have willingly exchanged queens in a
  > single game.
  
  That got me thinking, when a strong endgame player faces a strong middlegame player, does the latter stand a chance?
  
  The endgame player would force the opponent into exchanging pieces and there's nothing you can do about it simply because he doesn't care about his pieces, just like what happened in the championship match, am I right? What are the odds of a middlegame player defeating an endgame player?
  
  **Tags:** theory, endgame, middlegame
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: If endgame player exchanges no matter what he/she will end up in much worse endgame, and they can still lose. Regarding Anand-Carlsen, I don't think Anand had much of chance, given the way Carlsen was playing lately.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 4 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2013-12-03. Score: 4
  
  Anand's problem was mainly psychological. Anand is a world class endgame player, but he made some careless mistakes.
  
  You can't really be considered a strong middlegame player if you have no endgame concept. Recognizing favorable endgames while calculating variations in the middlegame is part of being a strong middlegame player. But perhaps some players don't know how to proceed once they transition to that endgame? If that's the case, I would favor the stronger endgame player to win.
  
  Obviously endgame skill is more valuable to have, it serves as the backbone for the opening and middlegame. Imagine a so-called "Strong" middlegame player who knows how to exchange into a favorable endgame, but has no confidence in his endgame skills?
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2014-11-29. Score: 2
  
  "What are the odds of a middle game player defeating an endgame player?"
  
  Well, given the Kasparov-Karpov match history, I'd say, "Pretty Good!"
  
  Seriously, the answer is less about phases of the game and more about the players themselves. The "endgame player" has to be able to survive the best shots of the "middlegame player" before the endgame even arrives.
  
  In the case of Anand-Carlsen, I really don't think second-guessing Anand's match preparation means anything. From where I sat, Carlsen would have won, no matter Anand's preparation. He's simply the better player, and while short matches like the current WC events allow greater probability for randomness to elevate the lesser player, it wasn't enough to save Anand.
  
  Just like Fischer wasn't going to be beaten by any of his elders, and Karpov, and Kasparov, Carlsen is going to sit in that seat until one of his generation, or the next, rises up (Caruana, perhaps?) to unseat him.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2014-11-30. Score: 1
  
  I would say that a strong middle game player would understand the middle game enough to know that the particular stage sets up the middle game. For example, simple things like pawn islands, doubled up pawns, bishops, pawn structure, and backward pawns are things that good middle game players will look for. Thus, even if the good endgame player gets the game to the endgame, the middle game player would already have an advantage. Seems to me that the middle game player has considerable better chances.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2013-12-06. Score: 1
  
  I think it would be wrong to say that Carlsen as a middle game player is weaker than Anand. Carlsen is a quite strong middle game player, and the reason why he was eager to play end games was that he was getting minor advantage for his pieces in the middle games. He is the strongest player in the world, and having almost 100 points difference before the match was the indicator of the difference between Carlsen and Anand.
  
  
  ---
  
  