What is the latest edition of:

Silman's Complete Endgame Course: From Beginner to Master

I have found a paperback in UK published on 10th July 2008. Is there anything more recent out there?

Thank you in advance :)

Dvoretsky writes his books for students of his school, who are CANDIDATE MASTERS. Now, do you think that anyone under 2000 can understand Dvoretsky's book?

I got it 6 months ago & have only browsed through it. But from what I can tell it's very good. Go through it in order. Even starting at the lower rating levels material will do you good because suppose you're studying the class C chapter, there will be stuff in there that makes better sense only if you've went through class E & D first. Your foundation will be more solid. 

"Bishop and Knight (endgame) might never occur in your whole chess lifetime and is far too difficult to waste your precious study time on."

Sorry but that boat has already sailed a couple of times for me one time even promoting to a bishop instead of a queen just to get the ending

Going with Silman's idea of "study what's important/appropriate for your rating first" I see where he's going with that statement. In serious competition, you'll get more mileage out of rook endgames than BNvK. It's not like you can't find that particular endgame elsewhere if you really want to study it. He does a great job making material understandable, and presenting it in a good order so you're not wasting your time.

I like the book very, very much. It is very accessible and the concept of "learn what you need to know" is very good.

For the sake of completeness I agree that K+BN vs. K should have been included, if only as an annex. However, you can easily find that endgame elsewhere (not the lease on chess.com), if you really want to learn it. From a practical standpoint Silman is totally correct in that it rarely occurs if ever.

Completely agree. The issue of the missing BNvK is given way too much attention... you can find how to do it in 2 minutes by using google if you really want to. The book is very practical and innovative in the order it introduces the information.

I've looked at this bishop + knight ending before, I did have this come up once in a tournament game at standard time controls, at the time I couldn't work out over the board how to do it. I'd say it's worth learning simply to know how to get this combination of pieces to work together.

I feel I'd probably be able to work it out now over the board (not in bullet or blitz), but it is possible I'd slip up here and there which would get me over the 50-move draw rule.

Silman's book is excellent - clear exposition, well organized, good examples. It is a bit weird that he left out B+N endgames. I don't disagree with the premise that this ending is rare. However, how difficult would it have been to include a chapter at the end for the curious reader to peruse. He seems a bit too dogmatic on his point that it is a waste of time to study this endgame.

He left out B+N endgames because he does not want players wasting time studying them.

You can find You Tube videos on checkmating with knight and bishop.

I like the book, but here's something else you can disagree with. In the ending Q vs. P, Silman gives the following:

Rule  -  Lone Queen vs. King and pawn on the 6th rank is always a win for the Queen.

He states this as an absolute rule, and doesn't mention the exceptions that can occur with a bishop pawn on the 6th rank.

Maybe you didn't read my comment all the way. I'm referring to exceptions with a bishop pawn on the 6th rank, not the 7th rank.

Silman's rule is ambiguous as to whether "on the 6th rank" refers just to the pawn, or to the pawn and the king. But it's in a section titled "Queen vs. Pawn on 6th Rank", so a reader would be justified in thinking the rule is meant to apply whenever the pawn is on the 6th rank, no matter where the king is. That's the assumption I'm making in referring to exceptions with a bishop pawn on the 6th rank.

White to play. Can White win?

But White would be winning if the White king were on, say, h8.

In the absence of any response, I am going to assume CookieMonster agrees that the position I posted is a draw. I brought the subject up in reply to someone who couldn't find anything to disagree with in Silman's book except his choice not to cover the basic mate with bishop and knight. I suggested one could also disagree with a rule he gave allowing for no exceptions.

Another thing one could disagree with, in Silman's treatment of queen versus pawn on the 6th rank, is his failure to give the winning procedure against a bishop pawn. In the position I posted, with the white king moved to h8, how does White win?  I have seen in a tournament game a highly ranked player end up with a draw in such a position due to not knowing the winning procedure. It's something I think Silman should have explained.

The position I posted (#65) is a draw, despite Silman's claim that a queen always wins against a pawn on the 6th rank.

In that position, if the white king started instead on h8, it would be a win for White, but Silman failed to explain the winning procedure in that case.

I don't think I can say it any more clearly than that.

I agree with this. As I said in my first comment, I like the book.

@Lasker1900:  As someone who has read Silman's book, I would appreciate your opinion on the argument I've been having with CookieMonster. I claim (comment #57) that Silman gives a rule (p. 135) that lone queen vs. king and pawn on the 6th rank is always a win for the queen, and doesn't mention any exceptions. CookieMonster claims (comment #58) that Silman does mention the exceptions, without telling where in the book this appears. What do you say?

Note: I wasn't trying to downgrade the book. I was replying to someone who could only find one thing in the whole book to disagree with, namely the omission of the basic mate with bishop and knight.