should beginners study endgames?

so Reb what did you spend most of the time on ?

 Middlegames/tactics  , with openings after that , endings the least

end games are where you finally win.

You can't win without a good end game.

 What nonsense. I win many games in the middlegame and even some in the opening. The lower you go down the rating scale the less important endings become because they dont get there 99% of the time.

Interesting point. 

I think there might be a minor confusion over what constitutes "basic" endgame knowledge. Some of the things a National Master might consider "basic" are likely not that trivial to a beginner. Basic knowledge, to me, includes the rook/king vs king mate, King and pawn vs king both on the offense and defense, some other things like common pawn break techniques. These are things beginners should know. Then there's things like using a distant passed pawn in a king and pawns ending to win the other pawns that I wouldn't consider a waste either, and that I imagine a National Master would still consider "basic".

As for the other angle: if you can't rely on an ability to convert a "won" endgame into a win, or for that matter recognize that an endgame is won, you increase the pressure to win before that happens, and you might miss opportunities to trade down into a won endgame that arise if you do get some pressure in the middlegame. Instead, you might get in over yourself trying to increase the pressure, and have the opponent escape into a drawn endgame or even lose it yourself. Sometimes the won endgame is all you can get.

I think your points are well taken. 

Thanks for the great discussion.  I've spent the last several years studying endgames mainly.  I think they are fun and interesting.  I work really hard in my games to trade off when I'm up; because at my level I can usually win in an endgame situtation. 

My problem is  I almost never make it to a endgame.  I hang peices and still get back ranked.  I'm going to take some of this information and try and change my study habbits

I beleive the true beginners need to first learn how the pieces move, check, checkmate, stalemate, that sort of thing.  Basic rules.

After that, some very basic opening theory.  Open with a pawn to the center, develop pieces, castle to protect the king and help get a rook in the game.  At this point they can start "playing" chess.

And then I think they need to learn basic endgames.  Nothing fancy - they can come back to that later.  But how to do simple mates, how to force a win with rook/king vs king, how to promote a pawn, that sort of thing.

Partly, I feel they need to learn this because otherwise, if they play another beginner and manage to come out ahead in the endgame, they generally don't know how to do anything with it.  I've seen, time and time again, where all they do is check, king moves, check, king moves, check, king moves, because they have no idea what they need to do next.

Partly, it lets them feel like they are actualy learning.  If I play a beginner  I'm teaching, they aren't going to beat me in a game unless I'm pretty much telling them what to move.  (And sometimes I do that.) 

However, I can give them a rook/king to my king, teach them a little about the theory, and before long, they can "win" that game.  It lets them feel like they are learning - and they are.

Once they know some basic end game theory, I'll start playing them more actual games, and having them work tactical problems.

While I'll keep reminding them about general opening theory, I won't bother to teach them individual openings for some time.  Individual openings require too much memorization, and for a new player, it seems hopeless, since nobody can remember all the basic opening patterns.  If they start thinking "OMG, I have to learn all these openings to be a decent player" you'll likely lose them for good.  Those will come later, and if they get that far, I'll be advising them to find a better teacher.  :)

Up until they reach the point where I feel they need a different teacher, I'll keep working with them bit by bit on endgames.  Outside of very basic endgames that I'll teach them early, endgames won't be the primary focus, but we'll keep working on them a little at a time.

Count me in on the "teach it in reverse" side, more or less.  Endgames, middle-game, then openings.

Endgames are just like any aspect, you can't ignore them, and you don't want to over specialize in one area either.  Of course most agree beginners needs the basics, but we might disagree on what all the basics are :).  Besides overkill mates, K+p vs king and then add a pair of each different type of pieces.  K+B+p vs K+B etc.  Then general guidelines of king and pawn endgames like passers are strong, protected passers are great, etc.

That one classic endgame example with same color bishops where one side has a pawn and because the defending king can't get behind the pawn just right and it's on the 6th already or something that with a triangulation and use of zugzwang you can win it (something like that) no... that's totally useless to a beginner in my opinion.

Yes.

     I believe it was Capablanca who said to learn chess in reverse starting with
the endgame.  It reminds me of the famous golf professional who taught the
game in reverse starting with putting.
     The problem with this idea is Capablanca was a genius.  For most mere
mortals endgame study is tedious and difficult.  Even really good players
here at Chess.com could use more endgame practice, but human nature is
to ignore our weaknesses and practice our strengths. 
     It is called taking the path of least resistance.

Yes, beginnners should study basic endgames for sure. I can't even count how many times Ive seen games in the lowest section like U900 of a tourney while walking around where one side has K+Q or K+R against K and they can't checkmate...Or someone with a winning K+1 Pawn incorrectly playing it and ending the game in stalemate.

But more advanced endgames don't really need to be studied at this level. The middlegame/opening is more important.

End Games by Jeremy Silman -- by rating.