Fine's is more of a book to consult for a specific ending though, of course, one can learn quite a lot from it if you wanted to just dive in and study.
Silman's endgame book organizes the endgames by the student's strength. It has gotten good reviews and is probably better for you than Fine's book.
http://www.amazon.com/Silmans-Complete-Endgame-Course-Beginner/dp/1890085103
There are many great endgame books out there and the list can grow quite a bit.
I'll admit I know nothing about Fine's book, however I do have Silman's endgame tome and for a basic guide, I can't imagine anything with more clarity with the occasional bit of humor.
I feel like his organization of skills is excellent, he explains everything fully, and the little tests with full solutions at the end of every section is a wonderful way to test yourself and cement the concepts employed.
I'd almost go so far as to say you won't need any other endgame book until you're titled with that one in hand, but maybe I'm too much a fan of Silman's writing.
Silman's book is the bomb, and so is Dvoretsky's Endgame manual. I just wrote a blog post on Dvoretsky if you feel like reading.
I have both books but haven't finished Silman's yet.
Fine's "Basic Chess Endings" is very thorough but is a lot of work. It's filled with page after page of examples that you must work out on a board. It's dry, tedious work but it really shows you how to get the job done.
Silman's book is a much easier read. At least, what I've covered so far is much easier. It explains more of the theories behind a certain endgame position with few examples. One bishop endgame example was refuted on the first move by a simple chess program I have. His theory behind that endgame seemed sound but his example was not so good. Overall though, I really like the book and would recommend it to anyone.
I see advantages in both books. Silman better explains the theory behind a position so you can play it by ear in similar positions over the board. Fine exhaustively shows the tactics in various positions but leaves you to figure out the overall theory.
Be safe, get both. :D
Averbakh's Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge.
Averbakh's Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge.
great book it is wonderful it is the perfect endgame book.
Fine's book is excellent and brilliant when you consider he put the whole thing together in just a few months without any other endgame manuals being in existence at the time. Most other endgame books differ mostly in the way they are organized. Sillman's endgame book is excellent in the way the information is presented; starting with simple endgames and gradually increasing levels of difficulty according to rating and also by eliminating material circumstances which rarely arise in real games. Great for the "improving" chess player. But I don't care much for the formatting of the pages and the way he writes. I feel put off by some of his opinions and self -promotion.
Another problem with Fine is that (due to its age and the fact that he was a pioneer in the field) it's famously riddled with errors.
Does the 2003 edition revised by Benko suffer for the same reasons? I wouldn't know but suspect it must be significantly better just for the collected errata that must have been corrected in the new one.
I had a copy for years and years and really admired the work Fine did but eventually got Fundamental Chess Endings for my reference work and so far it is doing its job.
Batsford Chess Endings: I was able to use this one to learn even though it is a reference work as well. A friend had it and brought it to our study sesssions for awhile. We worked on N+P endings. Shortly after I actually had a game devolve to N+Ps and I drew a lost game just because I knew how the N could hold off K+P all by itself and my opponent apparently never studied such positions and was caught off guard. Well that's half a point anyway.
I was thinking about purchasing the book Basic Chess Endings by Reuben Fine, what are your opinions on that book?
Are there any other books you can recommend for endgame study?