Just one example (of hundreds, I think).
There is a famous Lasker study, from a game of his against Capablanca.

(In my liberal notion of chess study, I myself have produced a couple of worthy studies from games, let alone others presenting me their own produtions )

I guess

1. Rg1 – Kf3 2. Ke6 Kxe4 3. Rxg2 d5+ 4. Kd7 – Rxb5

is winning for black?

The important point is: looking at and maybe solving endgame studies can help you in games played over the board – the very reason why endgame studies are the only problems that attract my attention.

And yes, congrats Peter – methree/four/five … . Arne has a point: GMs don’t take comments by weakies seriously because too many of them (us?) are very quick in commenting on and criticising their (GM) games and moves while lacking in-depth chess understanding – see also examples in this and other chess forums!? But this doesn’t mean that they are ALWAYS wrong …. .

“strong players become especially dogmatic in the presence of weak players, because the weakies tend to be wrong almost any they open their mouth”

Very true! When I begun reading Peter’s text, an image of him and Ljubo imediately formed in my mind, and Ljubo was precisely commiting that crime

@udayb

Yes, I thought you were supported by something, not “wrong” in all senses. But it happens I’m in chess for a long time, and I have a, say, more liberal view.
The process of recognizing a nice puzzle on some (otherwise undistiguished) position is, by itself, creation. And so, at least for me and for every people I know, that puzzle then become imediatly a study (or a problem, if it goes “mate in x moves”).
But ok, maybe you’re right that, formaly, the International Comission of Chess Composition (or whatever is the name, I don’t remember) may have studies out of actual games forbiden, for their formal recognition.
I’d say it’s strange, but as you say that, and as I’m not going to confirm now, I must admit as plausible.

According to Wikipedia, “An endgame study, or just study, is a composed chess position — that is, one that has been made up rather than one from an actual game”.

For more details, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_study

Great work by Peter, congratulations to him again.

Unless you define study as something not related to an actual game, or something published as a study, with author’s name and year of creation, of course it is a study. For me it is a chess study. Someone shows me a chess puzzle of “white (or black) to play and win (or draw)”. It’s a study.

Congratulations to Peter, and yes, Arne, it is always interesting, but two things are constantelly (lots of times everyday, in fact) happening:
1. Great players being dogmatic (otherwise they were perfect, everybody has to lean on some dogma. Progress is just dogma breaking and adoption)
2. Not so great players finding things that are escaping great players.
“Of course everyone of us is a genius when finding a new idea, or breaking a dogma. Even if it is just new for him”.