Nope. I'm gonna focus on the original question, which was for beginners, not club players.
Study what interests you. Play a few games, then take a look at what sorts of mistakes you're making and study those.
The Step method, which is quite popular in Europe, is an excellent first resource for novices.
Thank you, both for being reasonable in this crazy discussion and for giving me a good answer! 
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
… Nonsense like "do whatever you want" can no longer be considered even remotely serious. … they say the convenient " what ever you do it's the same" ...
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?
"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
Is that supposed to be an answer to one of my questions in post #84?
No, but I am humbly suggesting quoting someone isn't the best argument.
2 strong players should train 2 neophytes for a month and let them battle ,with both knowing how the pieces move and just openings or endgames.and a set of principals relating to there study.
this could be a eye opening experience and a new finding in the way we study chess. i remember some old computers who would analyse backwards from endgame to beginning.
If you are new, study openings.
Not really a lot. But you should be getting a playable middlegame 90% of the time.
Once you are there, study other things.
I love endgame myself. I have embarrassed players 100 or 200 points higher than me in the endgame. But endgames only go so far.
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
… Nonsense like "do whatever you want" can no longer be considered even remotely serious. … they say the convenient " what ever you do it's the same" ...
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?
"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
Is that supposed to be an answer to one of my questions in post #84?
No, but I am humbly suggesting quoting someone isn't the best argument.
What do you think I was using the quote to argue? FredPhillips posted about a hypothetical competition between two extremes, and I tried to call attention to another possibility - really a whole range of possibilities - between the two extremes.
I think the Silman book presents a plausible approach for learning endgames in stages as one improves.
http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/theres-an-end-to-it-all
how would you handle a bishop vs knight with pawns on both sides position .Or just pawns on one side with same pieces. . which piece would you rather have.. knowing drawing lines or fortresses,like fortnite in a way, definitely k plus pawn endings,knowing the Philidoe and Luceana position is a must for a beginner.Basic Piece endings .Q plus minor endings etc.triangulation ,there's a good one. how to mate with a bishop and knight.the list goes on.......
… knowing the Philidoe and Luceana position is a must for a beginner. ...
I am about 1500 and neither has ever come up in any game that I have ever played. Silman discusses them in his 1400-1599 section.
https://www.silmanjamespress.com/shop/chess/silmans-complete-endgame-course/
Thanks a lot for a very good post. They all say that endgametraining is the most important, and you explains WHY it is so in a very good way. I have an additional idea : I think that if you are good at endgame it can help you playing the middlegame setting up positions for a good endgame, because you have a feeling and ideas for what positions to reach. Any opinions on that idea?
bingo ,play long games of your best opening ,and see what patterns happen in the endgame. taking notes i believe is another great way to help pattern recognition. or even just diaagrams of positions that you can look at say before a tournament ,and like a photo ,youll end up saying ,oh yeah i remember that time....kinda idea.probably would work for positions that you needed help in. like flash cards.....hmmmmmmm maybe im onto something here.........anybody wanna try it? could have opening ,middle and endgame with evaluation on back ie white wins,black wins.
We sound similar in the way we teach. I teach Opening Principles, and basic endgames to beginners. I will get the occasional beginner that plays online, and will start with the usual: "I play online, and enjoy highly tactical/aggressive openings. Can you teach me to get better?"
I always tell them no. I cannot make you a better chess player. What i can do is give you the tools that you will have to use to improve. Their eyes glaze over, ignore what i just said, and will continue with something like: "I want to play some tricky openings so i can crush my friends at school, and or the cub"
We will play some games, and they always go the same way. Out comes the queen...out comes the bishop...sac the bishop on f2/f7...blunder a piece...blunder another piece...get mated. I then have to listen to how their "tactics" and "aggressive openings" always work.
I have to explain to them that hanging material is not playing "aggressively" I try to get across the importance of Opening Principles, and i get in return: "That's boring..."
Those types of students don't last long, as im not going to waste my time, or theirs.
It’s is funny to see quite a lot of weak players who learned some tactics are eager to give a lot of material in combinations that don’t work. I don’t know what is worst, such „aggressive“ players or people who don’t know that combinations exist.
I mean, I am reluctant to give even a knight for three pawns if this is all I will get from a combination. I see people rated 1300 in Daily Chess giving two minor pieces for two or three pawns just to harass a little bit my well protected king.
This topic has been covered extensively (and with humor), in many, many, discussion threads over the past 5 years. Post #51 is the thread cited below is a decent summary of what anyone (from beginner up to USCF A Class) needs to know about openings, and their study, writ large. Enjoy --
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/opening-theory-and-vegetarianism-are-both-overated
Thank you. Since few people bother to read deeply on the inter-web, we are left with constant repetition of the same silliness and trolling. Sometimes it's good for a few laughs, most times it's just another form of online addiction. People are (essentially) playing with a slot machine at a casino, and they are hooked on it.
Except when we actually play chess online, which we all greatly enjoy.
Even if you play endings like Smyslov if you lose a piece in the opening or get mated in the middlegame it will do you no good . I reached NM by spending most of my study time on middlegames/tactics and openings , I did study basic endings but didnt need to study endings deeply until I was playing in open sections and regularly facing titled players . Examine your most recent serious losses ... are you losing in the opening , middlegame , or endings ? Maybe you are losing due to weak tactics ? Work on that phase of the game that is your weakest phase , this doesnt mean you should ignore the other phases of chess , only that you should put extra time/effort into your biggest weakness ....
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
… Nonsense like "do whatever you want" can no longer be considered even remotely serious. … they say the convenient " what ever you do it's the same" ...
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?
"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
Is that supposed to be an answer to one of my questions in post #84?