I have worked through the entire Polgar book. It is very good at building basic mating patterns, but I would suggest something else that is not entirely focused on checkmates.
Have you visited the web page of the famous coach, Dan Heisman? (http://home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Events_Books/General_Book_Guide.htm)
He suggests Chess Tactics for Students, by John Bain, and his focus is on reaching the point of recognizing the answers to problems very quickly, rather than just being able to solve them. He outlines his suggestions on the page I linked.
I am curious on other's philosophy for tactics training.
I use ChessTempo.com currently. I have a rating of ~1650 there and at that rating the problems are difficult enough for me that I can take 20-45 min. I have solved over 2000 problems there over the course of five years.
At this point, I would prefer to be reinforcing basic patterns. This would allow me to see more problems in the same amount of time as well.
I have had a premium membership at ChessTempo before, and I don't think that is what I'm looking for. Sure they have alot of problems, but that's not exactly what I'm looking for. I also don't really like the freemium business model. And I certainly don't need a rating attached to my tactics training.
So, here is what I am thinking. I would like a set of basic tactics problems (I'm guessing mate in ones) that i can do "circles" of and drill patterns into my head. I will use these basic patterns as building blocks and work my way to more difficult problems (mate in twos). I plan to continue doing these circles indefinitely.
So I need to find a good set of tactics to spend my time on. From what I have read, the mate in one and twos from Polgar 5334 sound like they would be what I am looking for. There are ~300 mates in one and ~3,000 mates in two. Does anyone have any experience with this book? Are 300 and 3,000 about the number of positions I will want to assimilate? Any other thoughts?
I have looked at CT-Art as well, but this appears to be a step up in difficulty.