Are tactics really the way to go?

Even GMs miscalculate.

I'm curious about the difference between tactics and calcluation. I tend to think of them as the same -- the if-this-then-that of chess.

I see them as different.  Calculation or analysis is the series of "I go here, he goes there, I go here" thoughts.  Tactics are ideas that inform your analysis. "I go here and he can't go there because of this tactic" or "He just went there so I can't go here or here because he's threatening this".  It's like a shortcut or intuition that lets you know what possibilities to look for.  Or take a standard mating pattern that is 6 ply out.  Once you calculate the initial 6-ply sequence, the final 3-5 moves of the mate aren't necessary, you just know "and wins".

They go hand in hand but I don't think they're the same.  Your ability to analyze is limited by your tactical knowledge.  Assume a tactical knowledge of 0 and just about any move looks like a decent candidate move.  Which means your opponent has just about any number of decent replies.  Your search tree is very wide, shallow and wildly inaccurate.  Now give someone a good tactical grounding and some basic strategic principles and suddenly the list of candidate moves shrinks as do credible replies.  Now your search tree is narrow, deep and accurate.  

There more tactical patterns you know, the deeper you can analyze accurately.

In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before anything else; for whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middlegame and the opening must be studied in relation to the endgame.

Well, almost nobody applies this. The reason is twofold:

1. They are not fools to follow the recommendation of a random patzer named Capablanca.

2. What the heck, they are not beginners! They are aggressive attackers, but occasionally they lose because of the opening not being aggressive enough, their opponent molesting them, the board being slippery, etc.

Nice test position cookiemonster, it's fun when something instructive happens in your own game.

As white, in the 30 minute game, I don't think I would have allowed the position. I would have calculated a short line and given up on it e.g. 1...Nxg4 2.Nxg6 Nxe3 and now I'm down a pawn unless I can find a threat bigger than the attack on my queen.

I even thought this to myself but still didn't find the correct move lol. In a tournament game though I'm more stubborn, and with the position in front of me as black I think I would make the right decision.

lol @ a slippery board

In lion terms:

The first thing the lion does when he sees a heard of zebra or some other tasty prey, is he surveys the heard and looks for possible targets; slow, week, easy to reach....... This is calculation

Then, once he's chosen a nice juicy obtainable target, tactics begins.

If he moves over there, will his prey see him? If he moves over there will the rest of the heard see him and alert his prey? If he charges now, can he catch the prey before it gets away?

I think lions are probably good chess players too. 

planning, calculation; execution, tactics

You can draw the lines where you like.

It's all philosophy anyway, bunny.

BTW

Bunny Food:

Lion food:

Pizza anyone?

Yes, coming only second to trying to understand what your opponent wants to do.

Good thing i keep the game simple and just play chess.  Simplistic?  Yea, but thats how i like to treat the game.  It keeps it fun.  Now...what do i do when i run across those big words like tactics...calculation, etc?  I do what the position dictates, not what i want to do...well i try :-)

Seeing tactics is one thing, but learning to create positions where tactics show up is where you need to book up.

It's essentially that Capablanca quote why I have 14 books on the endgame (maybe 15 if Marin's Learn from the Legends book counts).  One can never learn too much about the endgame especially since we can see such positions at the end of the forcing variations, accept or reject the line based off our understanding that such a position is a draw or win.  For example one could calculate a line and say, "Opposite colored bishop ending ensues, dead draw, reject candidate move" whereas someone who calculates the exact same line and is familiar with the position would say, "Opposite colored bishops, but I have a strong initiative and the superior king position, his pawns are targets whereas mine can't be touched, most likely line to win due to these factors"

Exactly! 

This is why you can have an all in one opening manual like FCO, or MCO.  But endgame books are a whole different beast.

How do you play endgame online against opponent to practice them or study?

1. They are not fools to follow the recommendation of a random patzer named Capablanca.

Well, if one believes the Capablanca legend, the endgame is not how Capablanca got good at chess either.

I ask where is the evidence that studying the endgame is the key to improvement for developing players.

If that were true, we would not have so many 2000+ players with weak basic endgames. If that were true, we would see chess training programs  built substantially around endgame study.

It's true that endgames become more and more important as a player ascends into Expert, Master and GM territory. I love the Fischer story about how he disappeared for a couple months to live in a New York hotel and practice rook endings.

But what is the argument for serious endgame study for 1600 players?

Being good at something is no guarantee of being good at teaching it or of being good at critical thinking.

By now I've read enough Masters and GMs to know that outside a chess game proper, they are just more guys with more opinions.

I would imagine the emphasis on endings is because of the Russian school of chess emphasized this.  Or it might just be personal preference.  My favorite part of the game is the endgame, followed the the middlegame.  Openings?  Ehh...I still get by on Open Principles.

If you look at games of 1600 players I doubt you will find many endings in which neither side is already lost .  Most 1600 players make opening and middlegame mistakes so if they do reach an ending they are often lost already , objectively .  For such players to spend a lot of time on complex rook and pawn endings or queen endings is a waste , they should be spending their study time on openings and middlegames/tactics until they are reaching endings in which they arent already lost . Middlegames are my favorite part of the game and endings are my least favorite , especially now that I am a " senior "  player .  I made it to 2200 without doing much serious endgame study , other than basic endings . 

If we're taking advice from Ol' Jose we must consider this:

"I used to play chess before I learnt to write, but I have not studied it. I only study it when I am playing."  -Capablanca, London, 1911

Second: I've read various things about the Russian school. Clearly they did teach endings from the start of training. I remember a charming account of Smyslov explaining to schoolchildren how the king and the pawn must walk together up the file in K+P vs K endings.

But the endgame was just part of the training program. I question whether it was a large part, as one would expect following the Capablanca/pfren claim.

For instance, the award-winning Yusupov series of orange chess instruction books is said to be a packaging of the Russian school curriculum. Those books are mostly tactics, principles, openings with maybe 15% endgame material.