Study openings or endgames?

The sentence containing Yusupov is a question that does not recommend the Yusupov series to anyone. Neither #37 nor #53 recommended the Yusupov series. Post #1 was not by me.

There are people on these forums who want every question to devolve into personal discussions. This isn't about them. 

Let's focus on the question that was asked. 

@BobbyTalparov does raise a legitimate issue with the steps method. But it is still a good starting point. You don't have to buy the complete series.

Another good series that starts at the beginner level is Susan Polgar's books. You can probably find some of these resources at your local library and not have to pay a penny. Or a krona.

Here's a link to amazon.com's sample of Polgar's first book for beginners. Yes, she starts with basic checkmates.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1941270212/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1

Click on the "look inside" tab to see some of the contents.

I don't see the word "recommend" anywhere after the word, "yes", in your latest contribution. Have you decided that you do not want to try to support the idea that I recommended the Yusupov series to anyone? Do you dispute the relevance of #37 to #34? Do you dispute the relevance of #53 to #52?

After quoting parts of kindaspongey #61, SmyslovFan wrote (#64): "... There are people on these forums who want every question to devolve into personal discussions. …"

If someone is going to publicly accuse me of recommending the Yusupov series in a thread written by and for a beginner, it seems to me to be reasonable for me to point out that the accusation is groundless.

"... It's possible to be informative without getting personal." - SmyslovFan (#76, below)

With even a little bit of improvement, one has a fair chance of encountering things like rook-and-king-against-king situations. It might be really annoying to not know what to do. Even apart from that, it might be helpful to practice with the individual pieces.

Also, if you can't tell by looking whether a particular ending is won or drawn, your middle-game play will be rather random.

Not too long ago, I faced a position where it turned out to be very important to know about the rook-pawn-and-wrong-bishop ending. Still, it might be understandable if an absolute beginner wants to wait for a little while before studying that sort of thing.

Was it you who suggested that a player could try to get a better understanding of a game by posting it at chess.com? Come to think of it, was it also you who criticized a game-poster for not doing more work on it first?

The OP is rated +1000 and has played more than 200 games on this site. My recommendation to him stands. It's true, an absolute beginner should start with learning the moves, then the basic checkmates, and so on. The books by Susan Polgar are a good place to start for a player rated ~1000 here. In fact, her books are also good for someone who has just learned the moves.

It's possible to be informative without getting personal.

need a match with opening specialist vs endgame specialist. lets settle this.

What about a place in the competition for someone with this sort of attitude?

"... The game might be divided into three parts, i.e.:- 1. The opening. 2. The middle-game. 3. The end-game. There is one thing you must strive for, to be equally efficient in the three parts. Whether you are a strong or a weak player, you should try to be of equal strength in the three parts. ..." - Capablanca

I am not trying to sell books.

It did not occur to me that FredPhillips had a beginner competition in mind. Perhaps I should have thought of that, but even a beginner might try to spend some time on each of opening, middlegame, and endgame after looking at something like Capablanca's Primer of Chess.

What about the "weak player"s?

Do players have a logical reason to try to satisfy the DeirdreSkye notion of improvement?

Does that represent your reading of the Capablanca quote? Do players have a logical reason to try to satisfy the DeirdreSkye notion of remotely serious?

Chess should be full of joy not of pain, that is right!

Endgame. Too many players have a weak endgame and a reliance on opening theory. Following opening principles will serve you well in most situations.

"In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before everything else. For whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middle game and opening must be studied in relation to the end game". - Capablanca

I have learned how important understanding how to manage certain pawn structures os when playing different positions. It is one part of the game that has a certain permanence about it.