should beginners study endgames?

You should only study endgames if you want to stop being a beginner. If you enjoy being a beginner and losing to everybody, then endgame study is something you want to avoid.

 This is ridiculous, beginners lose the vast majority of their games in the openings and middlegames. It doesnt matter how good you play endings if you fall into an opening trap or get mated in the middlegame. Outside the most basic endings beginners shouldnt spend much time on endings until they are actually reaching endings without already being lost.

Studying endings really increased my chess ability because it really imprinted the sense of certain positions on my mind and so meant that I played better in strategy heavy middlegames because I knew what I was aiming for. Obviously spend only a little time on them, and a much larger chunk on tactics, in exactly the same way that a beginner should spend a very little time on openings to get the concepts down and to understand why certain moves are good, but spend the majority of time on tactics. I think it's fair to say that any endgame study is going to improve the other parts of your game as well.

100% Agreed!

Apparently, the less pieces the endgame has, the more difficult is to find the right moves... 

That's why I love chess! 

 All chess games have an opening and middlegame. This means that for every game that a beginner plays they improve from experience in those two parts of the game. The fact that most beginners don't reach endgames in their games is exactly why the endgame must be studied more than the other parts. You won't learn endgame theory through experience. So when eventually you get good enough to actually reach an even endgame, you will still lose because you haven't studied it. If you have studied endgames as a beginner, then as long as you can get through the opening and middlegame without any major mistakes, you will reach an endgame and win because you have had more endgame study than your opponent.

Oinquarki, I disagree with you (and agree with Reb) on this one.  The first 2 sentences of your post make it sound like you're going to de-emphasize endgame study for beginners, but then you argue that "the fact ... beginners don't reach endgames is exactly why the endgame must be studied more ..."  By that logic, we should all study K+B+N v K a lot, precisely because we will (probably) never get that from experience!  [Well, I've never gotten either side of that endgame.]  You're right that even as a non-beginner, I'll lose endgames based on not studying them.  But before that, I'll win -- and my opponents who studied their endings but lost in the middlegame will lose in the meantime!

Maybe it comes down to whose "as long as ..." statement is a bigger IF:  I say "as long as I can win in the opening, middle, or a simple ending (e.g. I have K + major piece v K)" whereas you say "as a long as you can get through the opening and middlegame without any major mistakes."  I love Capablanca's games, but still ....     

Ok then. We have different opinions. Let's agree to disagree.

Fair enough.  By the way, what's "The Finest City in the United States"?

San Diego, CA

Ah, yes ... I ran the "America's Finest City" Half Marathon a while back.  But getting back to endgames, an endgame question:

Is the 50-move draw rule (let's say we're talking USCF rules for OTB tournament chess) a matter of counting from a particular position -- i.e. the last situation where either a pawn moved or a piece was captured -- or counting from when a particular player notices it?  Another way of asking the same thing:  suppose a capture is made so that I'm losing a K+2B v K endgame after move 40, but I don't start counting until move 45.  Can I claim a draw if I'm not mated by move 90, or do I have to "declare" and make my opponent aware of the move count? 

Hmm, just realized that brings up another question:  can one mate on move 90 (i.e. move 50 of the count), or is that the move where the losing side claims the draw?

The score sheet determines the count. The arbiter (or you and your opponent if you are not in a tourney) consults the scoresheets.

Also, it's axiomatic that mate ends the game. No draw even if you were well past the 50-move limit.

yes

OK, it's the scoresheet.  Thanks.

Of course it's axiomatic that mate ends the game -- but that's if it occurs, or rather, if it is allowed to occur.  My last question was whether it would be allowed to occur on move 90.  Maybe a simpler way to ask the same thing is:  does the player with the winning material actually have 50 moves to mate (inclusive), or 49 moves?  Is the first move (that's part of the count) the move that creates the situation, or the move that follows the start of the situation?  [the situation = no pawn moves or captures]

The relevant part of the official FIDE laws of chess is rule 9.3[1]:
The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, if
(a) he writes on his scoresheet, and declares to the arbiter his intention to make a move which shall result in the last 50 moves having been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without the capture of any piece, or
(b) the last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without the capture of any piece.

Naturally, if a player writes down his next move as under (a) above, it must not be a pawn move or a capture for a valid claim. Additionally, a claim doesn't have to be made at the first opportunity – it can be made any time when there were no captures or pawn moves in the last fifty moves.

A game is not automatically declared a draw under the fifty-move rule – the draw must be claimed by a player on his turn to move. Therefore a game can continue beyond a point where a draw could be claimed under the rule. Theoretically, a game could continue indefinitely this way; but in practice, when a draw under the fifty-move rule can be claimed, one of the players is usually happy to claim it

It's significant that saying it's axiomatic that mate ends the game because until then there are a few reasons that the position can be rolled back etc. After mate, all those reasons don't prevail, such as illegal setup.

The only way to change the result would be an appeal to the arbiter over a cheating issue. At least, that's the only reason that comes to mind at the moment.

Personally, I didnt study endings ( beyond the basics ) until I was around 2000 otb. The reason I did so then was that I was finding myself in endings with players 2200 and over in which I was constantly being outplayed. It was clear that they knew/understood more about the endings than I. Today I still have this problem with IMs and GMs, reaching endings that I should win or draw only to draw or lose. I really believe most players can reach 1800 to 1900 with only studying basic endings, I did and I have zero talent for the game.

Don't study endings much.  I rarely get into even endings.  Usually, my games are decided in the middlegame and sometimes are capitalized in the endgame.  Tactics are the key to getting better at chess.  If your tactics are virtually flawless, you can become a proficient player without knowing much about the ending.  Once you reach the higher levels, endings should become more important.  But now, focus on tactics.

Capablanka said that beginer must study endgames if he wants to advance!!!

Asked differently => Do golfers need to practice how to putt? Well => In that analogy, you really don't care if you can barely get it into the green to begin with! :)

So I agree with most of the posts above, basic endgame study is a MUST but learning things as advanced as Lucena/Philidor and theory about corresponding squares is a waste for a beginner or atleast until he breaks the equiv. USCF 1600-ish rating in his/her Federation.

Though if you really want to invest any energy into endgame study after mastering the basic mates (this does not include Knight-bishop which is a waste of energy given the rarity of its occurance), master King and Pawn vs. King ... the lessons learned here are invaluable.

I recently purchased two of Silman's books on endgames and studied them cursorily before entering a tournament in Las Vegas in the Under 1000 section (so, yes, very beginner). From them I used principles of endgame play, such as opposition, which were highly useful in at least one game, where we came down to two pawns and a bishop each. It was also helpful in another game, in which I won by being up a pawn and making superior use of my King in a King and pawns endgame. It was also helpful in promoting a pawn in a third game and winning that one. So... it turned out to help 3 out of my 7 games.

I placed in a tie for 2nd, won $668, and went up 210 rating points. So, maybe beginners should study endgames.