Congruent's explantion is spot on.
The position is won and just requires the winning player to 'usually'
trade down into a clearly won ending.
The Abrahams book you are thinking of Robbie is 'The Chess Mind.
yes it is a rather difficult book to read.
His Technique in Chess
on the other hand is quite superb.
He does mention the use of the phase 'Technique' is over used and
A better term according to him is 'the winning method' and should be
explained by lazy authors instead of copping out with:
"...and the rest is a matter of technique."
Technique = a win without specualtion.
You know the winning method in how to mate with a King & Rook.
This is a win without specualtion. It's technique.
You can have tactical technique.
For instance spotting a Phildors Legacy or seeing a mate in ALL varations
of a combination, something like a perfect Greek Gift Bishop sac on h7.
You are pulling out all the mating patterns as you do when playing a
King & Rook v King ending.
Knowledge is technique.
You know in some cases split pawns can beat connected pawns.
He is a wee study I just composed leading to a position in Abrahams
Technique in Chess.
Here is a position from a recent game of mine. Game 9978132
White is a piece up so the win is a matter of technique.
No. Not yet. Black has a pawn for the piece.
White needs to find a way of crashing through.
First we must see the 'method' to obtain the Technically won position.
Here is one method of winning. (which I cocked up and had to find
another way which involved saccing all my Queenside pawns.)
Method One. (the plan)
Select the advanced pawn on f5 as a promotion candidate, sac the piece
back for two pawns.
Black has a way of stopping this plan, so it's not technically won....yet.