What is an endgame study exactly?

I have discussed this question with many people, and have gotten various answers. I am not sure if two of my puzzles qualify as endgame studies, but they sure are beautiful.

My question is, what is the difference between an endgame puzzle and endgame study?

I feel like a study is just a beautiful puzzle, with extraordinary, unusual forcing moves. Am I wrong?

Studies don't usually have many forcing moves.  It's an instructive position with a winning idea / series of moves that is unusual or difficult, and the answer is usually fairly long.  There are many different options for the opponent's side... there may even be more than a few critical lines, but the strong side always wins / weak side always draws (whatever the point of the study is).

Okay, by your definition, my first puzzle has a good chance qualifying as a study imo, but i dont believe my 2nd does, or maybe it does, probably not.... thanks for your input Catwoman.

lol @ catwoman (I don't think I have enough curves).

But which post has these two positions?  Is your batman and robin endgame post?  (I just remember seeing one, I'll have to go check again).

no those positions are junk if those are supposed to be studies.

I will message you the FEN of both of them if you are interested. Both are compositions and blind me with their ridiculousness.

Unlike problems, studies usually do not require a solution in a pre-determined number of moves.     SOURCE: www.chesscafe.com

To the extent that they are composed positions and offer the solver a specific task, endgame studies are similar to chess problems in which the stipulation is to "checkmate black in two moves against any defense," for example. However, while problems often present very artificial looking positions, studies often appear that they could occur in a game. SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_study

Thank you NR.

Well, that's wikipedia. Even on its own page, there are positions that look like they would never occur in a real game -- for example, in the 1962 Kasparyan study where the pieces are set up "just so" if you will. In fact, I thought that was what was supposed to characterize a study, even though it (possibly) contradicts wikipedia's statement -- most positions found in a game are not so precise with such clean solutions.

I wouldn't be worried about how things are arbitrarily defined, Random. Would you prefer a grandmaster quality puzzle, or a study of horrific quality?