Just a thought, but I find it ironic that as amatuers, they are super important, but in high level play they just don't happen since people usually just resign beforehand.

Gonnusuke:  you really play on until mate against anyone without a title?  I don't want to get into another "when to resign" thread but I would give most people who have established ratings here of over 2000 (I equate that with good club ratings at home 1700 ELO) the credit for a simple endgame win since there are no complications of time pressure etc like OTB.  I agree it would be rare I just resign a lot earlier unless I know my opponent is of expert strength or we've played before.

I had a game here which came down to K and P v K which I was defending.  I occupied the queening square and to my astonishment my opponent played on and on.  I had demonstrated over several moves and reiterations I knew what to do.  I began to feel a bit insulted to be honest. Eventually he/she  said in chat that they weren't sure if it was a draw or not. So I explained the theory and suggested an endgame book or any beginners treatise. As a friend of mine commented, isn't that the first thing you learn after how to mate with Rook and K or queen and K?  Evidently this person hadn't..despite being in the top ten on the site at the time.  So maybe you're right, some very strong players don't know textbook endgame theory

I'd credit any average otb tournament player with the ability to deliver elementary mates. In straight-forward positions, I can recognize when there's virtually no hope if my opponent is in the vicinity of my strength. But by all means play on if you wish--it's your right and your "dime" as they say.

why didn't he block the white bishop by placing his pawns on white squares ;/ endgames are so much more important then openings

Hmmmm that's some valuable advice, thanks Gonnosuke and ur right about that. My endgame in my opinion leaves alot to be desired still, yet im amazed at how many players even of my level can be even worse then i see myself in the endgame...

unlike most of chess which is so limitless in its possibilities and permuatations, endgame can be calculated much, much easier.  In a correspondence game, even if you have a low rating.  One should be able to merely calculate the possible, reasonable moves that your opponent can do in response.  Ironically, this tends to be the area in which most medium leveled players struggle with.  Perhaps, because it is the least "flashy" of the parts of chess.

@gonnosuke re post #6

quote  Needless to say, I was *shocked* when my opponent declined my draw offer despite being down to a K+B! 

When my opponent declined the draw offer I immediately knew it was a mistake for me to offer it in the first place.  It was obvious that his endgame understanding lagged severely behind his rating of 2130 or he would have known he had insufficient material to win the game and would have gladly accepted my draw offer. 

MM:

I'd say *shocked* was the understatement of the year.  That's even more extraordinary than my example...I have further comments on that game which I'll PM you Roy.

Point taken.

In a tournament, you could always call a TD and they'll call it a draw for you. Otherwise the guy might not know basic mating patterns at all and you'd have to get him to believe you. I usually let the guy put the pieces anywhere he wants and if he cant find a mate(which he can't) I'd resign. In timed games that won't work though...