How do I actually understand an endgame position?

@kindaspongey said ^

As far as I can tell. it really DOESN'T matter whether you would have played 55...f6+ or something else. The main thing seems to be that you should NOT have played 53...Kd8, giving BLang316 the opportunity to win by going for something like 54 Rxa7 Bxg4 55 Rxf7 Bf5 56 Kd6 Ke8 57 Re7+ Kf8 58 Ra7 Bc2 59 Ke6 Kg8 60 Kf6 Kh8 61 Rc7 Bd3 62 Rc3 Bf5 63 Rc4.
In words, I think that there was a serious probl...

But the engine says that the only two ways to draw involve me playing ...a5. And once again I just don't see what the point of a5 is.

Well, I guess that we are discussing 53...f6+ 54 Kd5 a5. Right off, of course, Rxa7 would have been prevented, but, beyond that, ...a5 would have meant that BLang316's rook would have been unable to immediately get behind your other a-pawn. Thus, BLang316 would have had to worry about some sort of scenario like this:
... a4-pawn advances
rook moves behind a5 pawn
... a3-pawn advanes
rook takes a5-pawn
... bishop moves to protect pawn on a2

@kindaspongey said ^

Well, I guess that we are discussing 53...f6+ 54 Kd5 a5. Right off, of course, Rxa7 would have been prevented, but, beyond that, ...a5 would have meant that BLang316's rook would have been unable to immediately get behind your other a-pawn. Thus, BLang316 would have had to worry about some sort of scenario like this:
... a4-pawn advances
rook moves behind a5 pawn
... a3-pawn advanes
rook takes a5-...

Ohh I can't believe I didn't realize that

The last time I had an ending I really didnt understand how I could have possibly not won it 2 pawns up, I set it up and played both sides vs stockfish until I had a high level/ideas based description of what I should have done and didnt and until I was winning reliably vs Stockfish. It took some time but was worth the effort I found.
Bill

[Event "rated classical game"] [Site "https://lichess.org/6B2YG9jf"] [Date "2026.08.23"] [White "BLang316"] [Variant "Standard"] [TimeControl "2700+45"] [Termination "Normal"] [Annotator "lichess.org"] To my surprise, after 53...f6+ 54 Kd5, it apparently would have worked for you to play 54...Kd8. I guess the point is that, after 55 Kd6 Bxg4, there would have been no pawn on f7 for BLang316 to capture.

@kindaspongey said in #32:

Well, I guess that we are discussing 53...f6+ 54 Kd5 a5. Right off, of course, Rxa7 would have been prevented, but, beyond that, ...a5 would have meant that BLang316's rook would have been unable to immediately get behind your other a-pawn. Thus, BLang316 would have had to worry about some sort of scenario like this:
... a4-pawn advances
rook moves behind a5 pawn
... a3-pawn advanes
rook takes a5-pawn
... bishop moves to protect pawn on a2

@TheDifferenceOfTier5 said in #33:

... Ohh I can't believe I didn't realize that

Not too long ago, I saw the movie, Darkest Hour (or was it Dunkirk), and, if I understood correctly, some soldiers were ordered on a suicidal mission for the purpose of delaying the Nazi advance. What a decision to have to make! Anyway, it is pretty easy for me to decide to ruthlessly sacrifice an a-pawn for the sake of the campaign.

@kindaspongey

Yeah, I worked that out as the purpose of f6+.

@swimmerBill said ^

The last time I had an ending I really didnt understand how I could have possibly not won it 2 pawns up, I set it up and played both sides vs stockfish until I had a high level/ideas based description of what I should have done and didnt and until I was winning reliably vs Stockfish. It took some time but was worth the effort I found.
Bill

The correct way. Bravo, Bill.

Bill is not afraid of hard work.

Don't be like @TheDifferenceOfTier5.

Be Like @swimmerBill.

“How do I actually understand an endgame position?”

-With your brain, duh. (And also your eyes)

There ARE books.

Dvoretsky's Engame Manual (which has been revised several times). John Nunn's endgame manuals. Karsten Muller's (Meuller's?) works. And several others.

They provide a wealth of insights -- but, admittedly, are to be sipped like fine wine. We can't finish the bottle quickly.

There are also endgame Table Bases. Last time I looked (a few years back) ChessBase made some available -- but I don't know the current price.

For a PARTICULAR position, though -- if the insights of theory aren't enough to suggest a clear answer fast enough to suit, then @swimmerBill's solution seems the answer.

Put it on a computer, with a trustworthy Tablebase if you have one, but even without one (which would be more common, I think) and then start trying alternatives.

Play it out, again and again, looking at the computer's evaluation as you do. This may take a lot of time, and quite a bit of effort. Which is okay, and often inevitable.

The problem is this: in a given endgame position, there is sometimes only ONE move that gets the best result -- (either a win or a draw, as the case may be). But sometimes there are MANY moves that do.

So really analyzing an endgame position (or any position, really) MIGHT involve going down a LOT of trails -- some of them to quite a bit of depth -- before achieving compete understanding.

Consider what Dvoretsky (always to be regarded) quoted in his Analytical Manual (second edition) on the entry page to his Part I, appropriately and pertinently named "Immersion in the Position":

"A bottomless pit opens,
Full of stars
Stars uncountable,
A bottomless abyss.

-- Mikhail Lomonosov"

What an apt and beautiful description of analyzing -- becoming "immersed" in -- nearly any position. It's hard work, because there's a lot to see that we don't see at first, unless, perhaps, our last name is Tal.

I don't think we should look at a position as a chore to fly through and move on. It's a beautiful wilderness to explore, at our leisure. Learning chess competence and understanding takes even most bright people many years.

Okay, I'll stop this post now. I think the spaniel just rolled his eyes.

Sometimes if the engine says that move X is the best, but I don't see why it's better than move Y, the thing that helps me understand is: go back and make move Y and let the engine show you how the opponent would punish it.

I find this especially helpful in pawn centric endgames where the key to understanding is some subtle aspect related to pawn structure or keeping the opponent's king off of certain squares, and to understand why one move is right I need to see why the other one is wrong.