If anyone is interested in playing this endgame with me on ICC and later on maybe other endgames for training, send me an instant message or post. 

Kevin: I wanted to send you an instant message and suggest we met at ICC to play through the ending against each other. However, you haven`t registered, so instant messaging isn`t possible.

Smyslov_Fan:
for me it is the opposite. I am really better in piece endings than in rook endings and my rating in OTB play is considerably lower than yours. But I don't how I have done it; I never put much effort in piece endings. It is possible, that having studied and played classical development gambits, in which the light cavalries immediately clash, plays an important role.
I am asking for a lot of criticism now and maybe this is utter nonsense. But I have always felt that there are similarities: active piece play, grabbing the initiative, using threats, looking for decisive tactics. The few general principles are easy to understand and apply.

Kevinludwig: this title does not ring a bell. Has Hooper translated and reworked some Euwe book(s) or have they really worked together?

I love the idea of an endgame forum!   

I have a question that may be just me, but I suspect otherwise:

I don't know why, but (compared to others who are in the high expert/low master group 2100-2300 elo) my Rook endings seem very good, but my minor piece endings are very weak.   While I am proud of my abilities in Rook endings (and others seem to think I'm just a better endgame player than they are because of my Rook endings), I am embarrassed by my minor piece play especially because I read that skill in minor piece play is perhaps the best indicator of chess strength.

Do many of you have similar strengths and weaknesses in the endgame?  And for those of you who have successfully mastered minor piece endings, HOW did you do it?  What's the secret?  If it were just a matter of reading, or playing into the endgames online, I'd be fine.  There must be more, but what?

Mnb: 
I'm not sure what to say except explain my experience with rook endings. I spent a couple of years (leisurely) going through the rook endings portion of a book by Euwe (don't recall the title at the moment). Although I only remember a handful of positions (maybe less!), my ability in rook endings is vastly improved--and I would guess that it helped to improve my OTB rating by 200-400 points (keep in mind that I am still only about 1890 USCF). Whether it is "patterns", or "concepts" that I have gained--I'm not sure. But I do know that it was one of the most productive things study-wise that I ever did. 

So this means that I agree with Markovich that studying technical endings is important...even though I don't think it's essential that you actually remember all of them to realize big improvements in your game.

Also...the reason that endings appealed to me, was that I didn't know how to improve my middlegame. But I felt that the ending was more or less science. You have exact positions, with exact winning methods. So I felt it really could be mastered by anybody with a book and enough motivation.

"studying tactics is important and useful, even if you have never had, or never will have, the positions in the diagram"
Because of pattern recognition - widely recognized as the factor which determines playing strength - studying tactics immediately improves your play. How does this work with the many special cases in endgames, like Klick's diagram above, or with the final position in my game?
Klick, you are right about Be3. Now I remember that Nio Bertholee told me the same 8 years ago.

Here is a game where I lost half a point due to lack on endgame knowledge. http://www.teamchess.org/pgnplayer/pgnplayer.php?ID=2290&Board=1

A careless 30...b4 lets white get into drawn position. 30...Ba2 should've won. After the game I talked to my opponent and he though I missed  31. Nh6 fork, but I didn't I saw it and I thought he wouldn't play it because trading down would be 'good for me'. Btw, I didn't know any opening theory in this line.
(And how do you install a diagram?)

I think endgame is important, because it lets you learn about the pieces themselves, what they like or don't like and what they are capable of doing. So it is imortant to learn it not just for endgame sake, but for overall understanding of chess as well. 

I would rather get a tough position out of the opening and simplify it to the drawn endgame and hold the draw. Then get a good position out of the opening, and then let the advantage evaporate during the transition from middle game to the endgame. I know result is the same, but I would prefer the 1st scenario, would just feel better.

Having said all that, we all play for fun and we should do what's fun for us when studying as well. 

I find Klick's argument not very convincing.

"In the following winning position a world-elite player once assessed the endgame after rookexchange with Rf5 and Rxg5 as won. To his great surprise it only drawed. Would be nice to know before playing it, not?"

How often will this position occur in my games? I am an amateur, not even a strong one. I cannot afford to study chess 10 hours a day. So I have to make some choices. And I will not chose endgames, which might only occur once in my lifetime and maybe not even that.
Let me put it the other way round, with an example of my own practice.

MNb - Arp,F [C48]
AKN Open-6 Haarlem (4), 1997

1.e4 e5 2.Pc3 Pf6 3.Pf3 Pc6 4.Lb5 Lc5 5.Pxe5 Lxf2+ 6.Kxf2 Pxe5 7.Tf1 Pfg4+ 8.Kg1 Dh4 9.h3 Dg3 10.hxg4 Pxg4 11.Tf3 Dh2+ 12.Kf1 Dh1+ 13.Ke2 Dxg2+ 14.Ke1 c6 15.Lf1 Dg1 16.Pe2 Dh2 17.d4 Dh4+ 18.Kd2 d5 19.e5 Pf2 20.Txf2 Dxf2 21.De1 Dxe1+ 22.Kxe1 h5 23.Pg1 Lf5 24.c3 f6 25.exf6 gxf6 26.Lf4 Kf7 27.Kf2 h4 28.Ph3 Thg8 29.Te1 Le4 30.Lh2 Tg4 31.Pf4 Tag8 32.Lh3 f5 33.b4 T4g5 34.a3 a5 35.bxa5 Ta8 36.Te2 Txa5 37.Tb2 b5 38.Ta2 Tg8 39.Pe2 Ke7 40.Lf4 Ta7 41.Ta1 Ke6 42.Lh6 Tga8 43.Lc1 Kf6 44.Pg1 Ta4 45.Pe2 b4 46.cxb4 Txb4 47.axb4 Txa1 48.Le3 Ta2 49.Ke1 Tb2 50.Ld2 Tb3 51.Pf4 Lf3 52.Kf2 Lg4 53.Le3 Tb2+ 54.Kg1 Txb4 55.Kh2 Tb3 56.Lf2 Kg5 57.Pe6+ Kh6 58.Pf4 Tf3 59.Kg2 Txf4 0-1

Immediately after the game specatator Rob Nio Bertholee showed me how I could have drawn, based on an idea derived from some study - since long I have forgotten which one. Yes, it would have been nice having known before resigning. But how many studies should I have learned, just to pick up this one and saving a half point? With the chance, that I would have forgotten it at that time, especially as I had only less than a minute on my clock.
What I am trying to say is this. I do not advocate neglecting the endgame. But as I do not play chess to make a living, missing an half point now or then is not the end of the world. One must realize, that most of my losses are not caused by lacking endgame knowledge, but by lacking middle game skills. At the other hand, averagely I do not play the endgame worse than my opponents, especially of equal strength. The two times I have played against titled ones, I did not even survive the transition from opening to the middle game ...
Opening theory is not the alpha and omega of chess, but neither is the endgame.

So I fully agree with Inn2 and strongly will consider buying the titles he mentioned.