tygxc wrote:
@22
I am not against study of pawn endings: you should study them just like you should study KBN vs. K despite it not occuring frequently.
Umm, I guess it's techinically correct to describe pawn endings and KBN endings as "not occuring frequently." In the same sense that it's technically correct to say that Mets don't win very frequently, and neither does someone frequently pitch a perfect game.
Or to put that another way, I could easily play five or ten pawn endings in a month (and dozens of other games where either I or my opponent know enough about pawn endings to know we need to avoid going into to one). That's a rather different order of "infrequent" than KBN vs K, which I've never once had either side of in my whole life.
@22
I am not against study of pawn endings: you should study them just like you should study KBN vs. K despite it not occuring frequently.
Chess Fundamentals by Capablanca treats rook endings, minor piece endings, queen endings, pawn endings, and the 5 basic checkmates, all in 60 pages only.
So in his expert opinion all of it is fundamental.