They are great. I actually downloaded the videos (with Firefox) and have them on my phone to watch for training purposes - it's literally as good as any endgame resources I've come across, paid or free, for the positions he covers (and they are all good ones, like the 'greatest hits') 

Highly, highly recommended. I actually sent him a msg in that I would have been willing to pay for a downloadable set of similar videos if he made like 30 more of them in a similar vein.

I found it, bb_gum:

http://chess-teacher.com/chess-training-plan-for-rapid-improvement/

Everyone should watch this. I would love to hear thoughts.

Yes, R+P vs R probably doesn't appear on your board that much at 1300.

But if you knew the above positions you would understand how to play the R+4p vs R +3p ending correctly. And also to trade down to that even. 

It is true that the 'basic' postions don't appear on the board. But knowing them shows you were to go 30 moves earlier. Otherwise what in the world are you trying to do in your ending you reached o/w if you don't know where you are headed?

There is too much to say in this forum. So all I will say is if you don't know endgames you won't get good. If you don't know openings you might not even get to the endgame. So pretty much both are im portant case closed.

R+4P vs. R+3P is significantly harder and involves general principles much more, like gaining space and not making pawn weaknesses. GMs have lost R+4P v R+3P when the defending side had another disadvantage such as lack of space.

I am raising my rating, but not with endgames yet.

Opening prep + middlegame understanding so far.

(Admittedly Endgames are a huge weakness for me, I only play them at ~1600-1700 level and really have to improve them - a lot) (This summer I plan to do a lot of study for them)

Depends on the player...for me, I need to work on both openings and endings, but probably endings come first.

Tactically, I'm good.

Positionally, I'm outplaying most of my opponents.

For other people, it's different. But you are right to say that beginner's should not focuse on openings at all beyond knowing the general theories of development.

But I don't think the beginner should focuse on endings either (of course they should know basic knowledge i.e. K+Q vs. K, K + R vs. K, etc) . Beginner games rarely get to an even ending, and most are decided in the middlegame.

No, they shouldn't focuse on strategy either. Beginner games are often decided by simple tactical blunders, one-movers and two-movers.

Beginners as a generality should improve their tactics. 

Endgame technique is important, I agree.

I don't really think it's more important than openings, though. Both are equally valuable.

Don't work on one without the other, I say!

openings do matter, but end games.. if both players know openings ... you should kinda have same points near the end... or close to it.. unless blunders etc.. whatever.. But end games you need to know your stuff or you just simply won't win any to opponent that do... like I see a lot of players at my ratings don't protect their pawns when needed, which in the end game is going to screw you up. But then again it's not always about pawns. so you get a end game like you suggested. K+R yeah it's tricky if you don't know.. your playing chess to win... not draw or lose. so learning endings is also just as important as openings.

When i hit 1500-1600 blitz more than year ago here i did not knew much openings or endgames, tactics or strategy. Maybe tiny bit of everything, just tiny. You have to know basic principles and common sense/logic for example avoid putting rook on passive defensive squares or knights at corner, or trap own bishop with pawns. Below that level all you need to know is to develop pieces to natural squares (but i walys put my knights on wrong squares - did not knew when they belong on d2/e2 or c3/f3), control center and not blundering pieces for free and a bit of speed at making fast moves and you will win games. Also avoid some players that are clearly sandbaggers. If you know endgames or tactics or openings and you are below.. well ... bad for you.

Kings should be allowed to capture en passant.

Lol yes, the above is a great example because in order to solve it you need to understand the square of the pawn, triangulation, the opposition and the weakness of a king v a passed protected pawn.

here is another one I like, watch what happens when black tries to keep the opposition but cannot at certain points for fear of leaving the square of the pawn.

Beautiful puzzle

opening, middle game and endgame are most important part in playing chess. Meaning, everyone that play chess must have an urgency of learning all the required skills for each part. Or otherwise, players would end to the loser side.

Every game of chess has an opening phase , no exceptions . Does anyone disagree ? The game can be lost in the opening which means that game will have no middlegame and no ending .  Does anyone disagree ? Given these FACTS I dont see how anyone can claim that openings are not important , its simply ludicrous to say such a thing . In my own practice I have always liked the middlegame most , which gets little mention in this thread . Ofcourse all 3 phases are important if you wish to be a strong player . 

True, Reb!

Honestly, I find most players struggle in the middlegame more than anything. Openings and endings can be studied (or simply figured out over the board) with relative ease.

The middlegame, in my opinion, is where chess is truly played—where strategies develop, pieces are repositioned, and the players fight over key squares, each pushing forward with their own plan of attack.

I detest the endgame. A well-played game should be practically decided in the middlegame. ~ chess quote by David Janowski

I love this quote and feel very much the same way , especially since I have become a senior player and no longer have the stamina / energy to play long drawn out endings with opponents not even half my age ..... 

I've made it to the 2100-2200 level without studying openings or endings. Now that I've begun to study both, I'm learning more about chess and strategy than I have before. So yes, I agree that there's lots of knowledge and be found in study.

Though, I disagree with you when you say that endgames are about understanding, and openings aren't. Both aspects of the game contain insights that are, in my opinion, invaluable.

Really, opening moves and endgame moves are one in the same. The endgame is just an extension of the middlegame, and the middlegame is just an extension of the opening.

Moves are move. You play them the same (by thinking ahead and finding what you believe to be the best for your position), regardless of what phase of the game you're in.

Both involve logic and purpose, and a good player plays each (and every) move for a concrete and thought-about reason. Even move one. Even move sixty.

Oh, and Reb: Amen! :D I remember playing a ten-year old boy who was pretty much my equal on the board, and feeling lousy about myself after. Lol