Endgame Fundamental - Question

Page 20 of the 4th edition.

"I conceived the idea of writing a popular booklet [Chess Endings Essential Knowledge] devoted to the endgame back in the early 1950s, when I was working on an encyclopaedic reference work intended for players of high standard. Out of the mass of information on the endgame, I thought it was important to select the minimum which any chess enthusiast should know in order to handle competently the concluding phase of the game. It turned out that it was not necessary to know such a great deal." - Averbakh

Maybe not necessary but probably sufficient.

The book starts off from the very basics (KPK) and builds up from there, so no particular standard is required to read it.

The booklet referred to was presumably Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge, but I haven't seen it. so I don't know if OP's position is included.

"... As a whole, Comprehensive Chess Endings will be a basic reference work on the theory and practice of the endgame, indispensible for the analysis of adjourned positions and for correspondence play. It will also be useful as a text-book for rated players wishing to raise their standard of endgame play." - Averbakh

It would no doubt be useful to highly rated players. Fischer had a copy of the series sent to him in his match against Spassky.

But it's also a good read and there would be nothing to stop an interested beginner from reading it. He'd have to be interested, of course, because at 300 large format pages for the Pawn Endings volume he wouldn't work his way through all those examples before tea time.

So far as GambitDanois is concerned he'd need to read only the section Two Pawns against One/Connected Pawns/No passed pawn, pawns blocked or even just the text accompanying diagrams 146 and 147.

I imagine there would be a French translation.

Indeed it doesn't, but I think that I understand this particular example well enough to be able to help if there is something specific that you wish to explore. An attempted improvement for Black? An alternative winning attempt by White?

@kindaspongey: I'm OK with it (I've read the book) and your subsequent explanation was reasonably clear too (if less complete than Averbakh's). I was just pointing out that playing a single winning line doesn't explain much.