I've made similar points to students -- I'd much rather they spent the same
amount of time on crucial rook and pawn endings, because they are much more
likely to occur in their games. In 30 years of tournament play, I've never
come across this ending. As a 2300 rated player, I'm not sure I could win
it if I did (although I think I probably would). Still, I also agree that
chess is a fascinating game, and there is nothing wrong with studying and
analyzing aspects of the game that interest you.

Randy Bauer

"Ricardo Gibert" wrote in message
news:Rht6c.38711$Zp.34493@fed1read07...

If you adopt the policy of always resigning this ending (playing either
side), the net impact on your rating on average will be less
than 1 rating point amortized over time. It has little to do with your
strength as a player. I've never encountered the ending in a
tournament game of mine and very rarely in blitz. It is one of the least
important endings one could ever study. It probably occurs
less than once in a thousand games.

I've heard people say that learning how to play this ending will teach
them how to handle minor pieces in the endgame, but it won't
do this because the ending is so abnormal (no pawns and the opponent has
zero pieces against your 2).

Practicality is an important consideration if you want to be a strong
player. In any case, despite the issue of practicality, I
suspect you are fascinated by the ending for reasons similar to those of
mountains climbers have about Everest. All I can say then
is good luck!