Empty squares (In search of the ephemeral understanding)

Every square that is empty or occupied by a certain piece changes the entire way a position is perceived! In continuation with the previous blog, the following position intrigued me in search for more answers. 

Deceptive simplicity

"To improve at chess, you should in the first instance study the endgame" - Capablanca

Endgames are thought of to be relatively simple compared to the middlegame, because of the number of pieces that remain. However, this leads to a situation where there are more empty squares, and they are harder to contend with, while making decisions relative to the pieces. While a complex middlegame can be understood somewhat intuitively at least with regard to which pieces should be played and not played, we do not have the same liberty in the endgame with less pieces and more squares. I find Rook endgames and perhaps Queen endgames to be very complex in this regard to understand. Getting the key to the position is also far from easy!