(n. 737 in the 1. edition) is the endgame Tartakower-Rossolimo 1934
(here with rev. col. and flanks). The new edition of ECE also follows the faulty analysis of Tartakower which contains many result-changing errors.
After 1.Kd4 Kc6 2.Ke3 Rf1
White missed the win by transferring the rook to the f-file- 3.Rh4!
After 3.Ke2? Rf5 4.g4 Rf4 5.g5
Black can draw by 5...Kd7
(n. 720 in the 1. edition) is the endgame Ree-Langeweg 1972
analysed by Minev.
The analysis of Minev is fine except one strange error not corrected also in the 2. edition. In the line 1.Rg7+ Kf8?
(1…Kh8!=) Minev awards 2.Rg6
with ? mark and continues with 2…Kf7
3.h7 Rb1 4.h8N+ Kf8 5.Rxf6+ Kg7=. 2.Rg6 is indeed a weak move but it does not spoil anything. Instead of 3.h7? White can easily rectify his error and backtracking by 3.Rg7+ Kf8 4.Rg4
with transposition to the winning line of Minev - 2.Rg4. If 3...Ke6 (instead of 3…Kf8), then 4.h7 Rb1 5.Kh5 Rh1+ 6.Kg6 Rg1 7.h8Q Rxg3+ 8.Kh7 Rh3+ 9.Kg8 Rxh8+ 10.Kxh8 f5 11.Kh7+–. 5)
(n. 1012 in the 1. edition) is a line from the classical endgame Spielmann-Rubinstein 1909
analysed by Kasparov (47.Rb7 (instead of 47.Ke3) 47…Rxa3 48.Rxg7 Rxh3).D. 5
Kasparov made several mistakes in the analysis of this line. Two of them are now detected in the ECE II. In the line 1.Rg6 Ke6 2.Rg8 Rh4 3.Ke3 Kd5 4.g6 Re4 5.Kf3 g4 6.Kg3
Petronijevic correctly gives 6…Kd4
as winning for Black and shows that in the same line after 6…f5 7.Rf6 Rd4 8.Rf5 Kc4 the position is not won for Black as supposed by Kasparov.
At the same time the ECE II does not address the mistakes of the line 5…Rf4
After 6.Ke3 Kc4?
Black throws away the win which was still possible after backtracking with 6…Re4+ 7.Kf3.
In the line 6.Ke3 Kc4? 7.f3 Kc3 8.Rh6 d5 D. 5a
White can draw both by 9.Rg6 Rxd4 10.Rxf6 Rd3+ 11.Kf2 Rd2+ 12.Kg3!
(not 12.Ke3? as suggested by Kasparov) as well as by 9.Rh1 Rxd4
(9...Rh4 10.Rc1+ Kb4 11.Rc5=) 10.Rc1+ Kb2 11.Kxd4 Kxc1 12.Kxd5 Kd2
(12...f5 13.Ke5=) 13.Ke6=