This is a very good one indeed.

I am currently working my way through Nunn's Understanding Chess Endgames (it is the 'introductory' tome of his recent works on the endgame) and wanted to post that I am quite happy with it so far (I have only done the Pawns and the Knights sections). Very good organisation of material under 100 essential themes you should know (I suppose sth like De La Villa's book - but I haven't seen that one so I may be wrong), but a bit heavy for a primer. Tbh I don't use it as a primer, but as a way to elevate my understanding of mostly technical endgames.

It is a good reference tome as well, e.g. when analysing a game of mine I came across a sideline variation featuring 3 pawns vs. defending Knight. Nunn gives examples of this (and also of 3P vs. Bishop), while I could not find any examples in e.g. Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual.

I have only FCE and I'm sticking with it. I think maybe it's a one-good-book type of subject, but that is just a personal, possibly naive inclination. Of course when you reach a very high level you might want more specific endgame books.

I like:

• Soltis: "Grandmaster Secrets - Endings"
• Averbakh: "Chess Endings - Essential Knowledge"
• Jesus de la Villa: "100 Endgames You Must Know"
• Shereshevsky: "Endgame Strategy"
• Everything by Karsten Müller

I don't like:

• "Silman's Complete Endgame Course" - Good idea, but poorly executed
• "Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual" - Too difficult for me

PS. I've read a few other endgame books, but these are the ones that are worth mentioning.

In general I'm a huge Dvoretsky disciple, but I don't recommend his Endgame Manual as anything else than a reference work for people under 2200.  The problem, as has been hinted at already, is that it takes FOREVER to work through.  The average 1800 player that starts at the beginning will probably take years to actually get through the whole thing, if they ever do.

For the "textbook" stuff you simply must know, I really like Averbakh's Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge.  It's small but dense, and I think it covers all the precise positions you need up until about 2200 (I, a 2150ish player, just recently reread it and found it very instructive and helpful).  Silman's book probably fulfills the same purpose but I find him too verbose.

Averbakh's book is small enough that you can finish it relatively quickly and get all the must-know positions you need.  Then you can spend your time more effectively by workingon Endgame Strategy, Rate Your Endgame, and Technique for the Tournament Player.  In my opinion, us amateurs really need to maximize our study time and find the most economical way of improving, without resorting to "quick fixes" or stupid gimmicks.  Dvoretsky's Manual is just too much.

rimy wrote on 11/29/10 at 11:02:06:


Thanks, I really didn't get the studying in I wanted to, but after my latest tournament I think I will make the time to get read more. I had 2 really complicated endgames this last tournament that I ended up drawing, I think I will have to run them through a computer to make sense of them.

Thanks a lot for the advice guys. I'm having a lot of fun with Dvoretsky. I just spent a full hour on 2 exercises, maybe a little more. I feel like I have learned a lot so far and am only around 12-13 pages in (though it's taken me 5-8 hours to thoroughly understand all of what I've read and the positions/exercises provided). I can see why people say it's for post 2000 level players, but I think I'm making decent headway into it and gaining understanding. Excited to see how much more I'll know as I get farther in.

Just played in a tournament so I will try to analyze the endgames at some point. Hopefully it will help me in the way you both describe. I also won 145 dollars at that tournament for coming in 4th, so I have some money to spend on a few new chess books. I think Shereshevsky's book will do the trick, as it seems to work in conjunction with Dvoretsky's. Maybe get a few more of Dvoretsky's books on other parts of the game if this book continues to work out so well for me. 

I went against your advice on 2 games actually that I drew. In one I didn't see any good way to make progress and it looked like simplifying down would let him win so I agreed to a draw. in the other I think I was in a lost position with only 2 minutes on my clock to make 3 crucial moves and my opponent offered me a draw. I did have some play though, and this assured him 350 dollars in prize money.

I would post a graphic of what the first game I drew looked like, but I don't know how to do so.

Dvoretsky has around 160 "precise" positions, and he claims that those are tho only one you have to know, but you have to know them well. So it might be an idea to limit your book study to those positions, but making sure that you really know them by practising gainst a strong engine.
Then the thing to turn to is a book about endgame strategy, and you can do a  lot worse than taking Shereshevsky. It's short but really good to read.

But above all, you have to play and study your own endgames. What will help you most is your attitude[i] towards endgames. You have to [i]want to play them. This means playing on in simple positions, fighting the urge to offer a draw in slightly worse positions, deliberately choosing a slight endgame advantage over a promising attack. Maybe you'll drop a couple of points in the beginning, by losing those slightly inferior positions or drawing slightly advantageous ones. But once you get used to it it'll change the way you play the game.

The best thing about enjoying playing endgames is that it gives you a lot more freedom in the opening and middlegame. You can for example play slightly dubious structures in the knowledge that you can still hold it later on. For example IQPs. Even it you initiative comes to nothing in the middlegame, the other guy still has to bring home his pawn. 
Or you feel a lot more relaxed when you know that you don't have to mate your guy by move 40.
So, go searching for endgames even if in the beginning your results suffer a bit. And of course, afterwards analyze them thoroughly. it is there that the encyclopedic works like Müller/Lamprecht have their place. But going through this book position by position will not help you much. 

There's one example I'd like to relate: When I was young there was a fairly strong junior player in my club. He was famed and feared  for his endgame technique. When I asked him what had made him so strong he told me that he had only analyzed one rook ending he'd lost together with a 2300 player for about 5 hours. After that he felt he'd learnt so much that from now on he could destroy anyone in the endgame. It was purely psychological, he went looking for endgames and the other junoir players started trying to avoid them against him, often staging wild unsound attacks.

One thing people overlook is that you need to practice playing endgames, you know, actually making decisions at the board!  Chess isn't really about textbook knowledge.

One of the all-time best chess books, IMHO, is Mednis' Rate Your Endgame.  And I bet you'd learn more from Dvoretsky's Technique for the Tournament Player than his Endgame Manual.  I don't own it, but I would think that Silman's book is all you will need for the "textbook" stuff up until 2200 or so.  It's more important to concentrate on technique and getting immediate feedback about why your moves are inferior (as found in the book by Mednis).