Studies on chessable

Does anyone else feel that on sites like chessable that with their studies, it almost seems like when they talk about something like a K+P vs K end game, they'll make better moves for one side and play worse for the other on purpose?

I have no idea, but i believe there are several authors and king and pawn is the most standard. Why should they go out of their way instead of just copying the other stuff?

I don't know, but it's like in this one end game study I'm reading they'll have white attacking to promote a pawn and it ends in a win for white. But in the next chapter they have the same position but with white defending and ends in a stalemate?

@TheBoarShark you can check it with a tablebase

@TheBoarShark You sure it's the same? In k+p v k endgames the turn is often decisive. They should be explaining it in the text going with the study. Anyway, if you would provide an example? Which book is it?

@huellyouhappy If you're on chessable I can give you a link to it later to see for yourself

@TheBoarShark sure, go ahead. Is it a free book? I own "100 endgames you must now" there, but I'm not willing to buy more endgame books. If it's not, you can just post the position here.

@huellyouhappy www.chessable.com/basic-endgames/course/6371/ It's the Pawn Endgames section I've mainly noticed it in

@TheBoarShark Well, I might need more concrete directions. If you talk, for example, about two first positions:
The opposition: Attacker wins.
and
The opposition: Defender draws.

There's nothing wrong with them. In the first position, the side to move achieves its goal (win for the k+p and draw for k). If in the first position it was black to move, it would be a draw. In fact, it's exactly what they say in the text. Can't say they do a particularly good job at explaining stuff though.

Or are you having trouble with something else?

@huellyouhappy I think it's probably like you said it's how they're explaining it