If you’re anything like me, you don’t spend nearly enough time polishing your endgame skills. Learning some cool new opening is much more fun, and the chances of picking up an easy point in your next tournament game as a direct result (i.e. instant gratification) seem much higher. Am I right?

Now, think about this: Unless you beat your opponent straight out of the opening (which is rarely a likely prospect), you’re going to have to play a middlegame and, if you still haven’t nailed his head to the board, an endgame. Your "cool new opening" might secure an advantage, but from this point on, you’re pretty much left to your own devices.

The point I’m trying to make is: More often than not, the outcome of the game will be decided in some sort of ending. You’d be surprised how many points are saved and thrown away in the latter stage of the game. Even in encounters between strong Grandmasters.

Let’s take a look at an instructive example:

Ljubojevic-Browne, Amsterdam 1972

White has no problems holding the rook ending after 37.Kxa5 Rxa2+ 38.Kxb4. Why Ljubo chose to take with the rook, is beyond me. I mean, a quick general assessment would tell a GM that the rook ending is completely drawn - no precision required. Pawn endings, on the other hand, usually demand precise calculation and execution of moves: One single mistake could be fatal!

In this position Browne missed the winning continuation, but my guess is he wasn't looking too hard. At this stage he had probably (just guessing again, folks!) resigned himself to splitting the point. The game finished:

White marches his king over and gobbles the f-pawn, and Black does the same with white's b-pawn.

Do you see how Black could have won on move 39?