From most complicated positions crystal-clear plans arose even for a patzer like me to understand. But he also managed to communicate the fact that analyzing is hard labour even in the highest level (thus there is nothing wrong if a beginner is struggling ;). And all this in front of a live audience.

Great line. I sell books online, next time I send someone the wrong one I'll just say All books are GOOD, and I'm sure by reading the one I sent you you will learn something to your advantage.

I have a theory. My theory is that if you want to be a 2000 rated player, here's all you have to do: fully master vs endings. I mean master it 100% so you can play these positions like tablebase plays them: like a God.

Averbakh vs Keres, 1950

Geller vs Averbakh, 1950

Averbakh vs Bronstein, 1951

Antoshin vs Averbakh, 1952

Lilienthal vs Averbakh, 1952

Taimanov vs Averbakh, 1953

Averbakh vs Botvinnik, 1955

Flohr vs Averbakh, 1955

if you do that your rating is at least 2000. It would be impossible for it not to be. > I completely agree that mastering R&P vs R ending will lead to a significant improvement in playings strength. Whether or not it will lead to a playing strength of 2000ELO, depends on how strong the player was to start with. You need to be able to reach the ending first. IMO, there are four main things that you need to reach around 2000ELO.

1)Tactics. You need to be good enough that you (almost)never miss a relatively simple 2 or 3 move combination that leads to a gain of material or a major positional advantage. For example, chessgames puzzles at the level of Monday and Tuesday must almost always be spotted during games.

2)Simple endings, with the most important probably being R&P vs P. Probably more half points are lost in this endgame than any other.

3)A reliable opening repertoire that will get you into playable positions that you understand. Unless your going to invest the time necessary to study ultra-sharp openings like the Botvinnik variation, don't play them(i've learnt this from bitter experience). This might seem obvious, but i'm sure many players would be stronger(including myself) if they chose a more suitable opening repertoire.

On the other hand, certain openings are fun to play, even when you're not that good at them. But you should understand that you're probably sacrificing some playing strength by using them. I think a good example of this is the King's gambit. Everyone loves the KG, but they start playing it by seeing Muzio gambits, and other games involving wild sacrifices(particularly on f7). To play the KG at a reasonable level however, you need to study it quite well, otherwise you will get into inferior positions.

I my experience many 2000+ players have a relatively unspectacular opening repertoire, but it is solid, and always leads to playable positions. The Caro-Kann seems to be a particular favourite, and a good example of what i'm talking about.

4)Some basics about different pawn structures. It important not to commit too many positional blunders.

Beyond this, just reading chess books on a regular basis is good to pick up various bits and pieces that could come in handy.

<Apart from Averbach and Smyslov, have there been any other modern players with a particular reputation as endgame specialists?>