A general assumption about the endgame is that it is boring and merely technique. But this is far from the truth. The reason behind the belief is that people tend not to find any action while studying endgames. It might be similar to mathematics where one plus one is two but not 100%. Similarly to the middle game you must be creative and imaginative in order to play better in the endgame.
Here are two beautiful and creative endgames which are having instructive values too:
Emanuel Lasker Vs. Edward Lasker in 1924: White to Move
This one is a very famous endgame played between the two Laskers where Emanuel Lasker managed to save the game despite being an exchange and a pawn down. In order to save a day you must have to win the b3 pawn even at the cost of White’s two pawns, but it is really difficult as Black can hold the b3 pawn. So Lasker came up with a really creative idea of creating a fortress with knight and king against king, pawn and rook. He played:
1.g7 Ke6 2.g8=Q Rxg8 3.Kc4 Rg3
3…Rb8 doesn’t change the outcome, for example 4.f5 Kxf5 5.Kc3 Ke4 6.Nc Kd5 7.Nd2 b2 8.Nb1 Ke4 9.Kc2 Kd4 and 10.Nd2 after which Black’s king can’t penetrate and the rook can’t leave the b file. Therefore the game would be a draw.
4.Na4 Kf5 5.Kb4 Kxf4 6. Nb2
Again a fortress! The rook can’t leave the third rank as Black’s king can’t support the pawn. White tried to win for some more moves but was soon force to agree to a draw.
Kasparov Vs. Timman in 2000: Black to Move
Black last move was c4, mainly relying on Rxc4 Rxb5 when fight is on. Instead this happened:
A surprise; Black had thought that Kxc4 is not possible because of d3, winning.
1…d3 2.Kxd5!! d2 3.g4+!
The point. Black resigned in view of 3…Kxg4 4. Rc4+ followed by Rd4.