[ QUOTE ]
Basic endgames are probably the thing other than tactics that a lot of people would benefit from studying some. They're definitely less flashy than learning cool sounding opening variations, so they don't really get the love. But, if you suck tactically, the likelihood of getting to an endgame that's going to require some theoretical knowledge is somewhat lower, so it seems tactics should still be boss. I'm only a rather casual player, though, so take my comments with a grain of salt.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I think studying tactics is good for developing pattern recognition skills, but it's only one piece of a rounded study program. Not that people should memorize MCO, but training yourself to do 1000 problems a day and think like a finite state automoton probably contributes less to your game than understanding how to play rook endings. Just IMHO, of course. To each his own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, endgames are important as well. Basic endgames (K&Q/R vs K, K&P vs K, some others) are essential. Nothing breaks my heart more than seeing kids with K and Q unable to mate a lone K. I see it every year at a scholastic tournament I direct, and it's one of the first things I teach my students.

R&P endgames get more important as you go up the rating ladder, but I've never had to prove Lucena or Philidor's over the board. The ideas behind them have come in handy now and again though.

You don't need to do 1000 problems a day. If you're serious, 30 minutes a day of pattern recognition and reinforcement with a problems book should be sufficient (which reminds me, I'm rusty.) The goal is to learn and eventually memorize a basic pattern and be able to recognize it in a game position almost immediately. It's much more reliable than calculating "from scratch," but that ability comes in handy as well (especially when calculating combinations that involve several tactical themes.)

De la Maza's plan is tactics-heavy...that's why I like Heisman's plan better. It's more comprehensive and user-friendly.

ScottieK