Queen and pawn versus queen endgame

Last updated
Chess kll45.svg Chess qll45.svg Chess pll45.svg Chess kdl45.svg Chess qdl45.svg
Müller & Lamprecht, diagram 9.12A
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
White to play wins; Black to play draws

The queen and pawn versus queen endgame is a chess endgame in which both sides have a queen and one side has a pawn, which one tries to promote. It is very complicated and difficult to play. Cross-checks are often used as a device to win the game by forcing the exchange of queens. It is almost always a draw if the defending king is in front of the pawn. [1]

Contents

Karsten Müller and Frank Lamprecht say that this endgame occurs quite frequently but Mark Dvoretsky says that it occurs quite seldom. [2] [3] This is the second most common "piece and pawn versus piece" endgame, next to the rook and pawn versus rook endgame. [4]

History

Before about 1940 all that was known about this endgame was based on some superficial analysis of a few positions from the time of Philidor (1726–95). Analysts gradually started to analyze the endgame. The endgame occurred in a 1944 game between Botvinnik and Ravinsky (below) and much analysis followed. Paul Keres published a large amount of analysis in 1947–49. This analysis was put to the test in the 1954 game between Botvinnik and Minev (below). Minev followed the suggestions of Keres and lost – revealing major flaws in the analysis. In 1955, Shakhmaty v SSSR started a competition for the best analysis of this endgame. Several theorists had contributed useful analysis by the time the competition ended in 1959. Early analysts thought that the ending was almost always drawn with a knight pawn, but Yuri Averbakh questioned that in the 1950s. Averbakh, working with previous analysis, published his extensive analysis in 1962. [5]

A complete analysis was not done until the advent of endgame tablebases, which showed that more positions can be won than was previously thought. Before tablebases, Averbach provided the best coverage, but the 70 pages of analysis in Comprehensive Chess Endgames mainly covered only simple positions with the pawn already on the seventh rank . [6] John Nunn wrote three books based on the most important endgames in the five-piece endgame tablebases but omitted this endgame because "... it proved too hard to understand". [7] He also commented "This is the trickiest of all five-man endings, which is unfortunate as it is one of the most common to arise in practice." [8]

General considerations

According to Reuben Fine and Pal Benko, this ending is a draw unless the pawn is a bishop pawn or a central pawn (i.e. king pawn or queen pawn ) and the pawn is in the seventh rank and is supported by its king. If the defending king can get in front of the pawn, the game is a draw; otherwise it is best for the defender to keep their king far away from the pawn. The defender should keep checking until they run out of checks, and then, if possible, pin the pawn. [9] Based on computer analysis, Müller and Lamprecht give a different description. According to them, normally the defending king needs to be in front of the pawn. A rook pawn or knight pawn is a theoretical draw if the defending king is in front or near the pawn or if the king is in the corner opposite the pawn's promotion square. A knight pawn has more practical winning chances than a rook pawn. A bishop pawn or central pawn is a win if the defending king is not in front of the pawn. A bishop pawn has better winning chances than a central pawn. The position of the defending king is especially important. [10] John Nunn states that analysis since Fine's initial work (published in 1941 in Basic Chess Endings ) has shown that there are many more winning positions than were known at that time (ignoring the fifty-move rule in some cases). [11] Wins by the side with the pawn take up to 59 moves. [12] A cross-check may be necessary to win.

Edmar Mednis gave this breakdown when the defending king is not able to help:

John Nunn gives this summary for the defense:

Naturally, the less advanced the pawn is, the better the defensive chances. [14]

Rook pawn

Nunn, 2007, p. 150
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Black king on white dots: win with White to move, draw with Black to move; on black dots – win with either to move; other squares – draw

In 1985 the chess computer Belle completed the endgame tablebase for this ending. The rook pawn is the most important for actual games since it arises the most frequently, since it is the least likely pawn to have been exchanged. [15] A rook pawn needs to be on at least the sixth rank to have decent winning chances. [16]

Mednis gave the following guidelines, based on his analysis of the tablebase. Assume that White has a pawn on the h- file .

To draw:

To win:

Example of a long theoretical win involving a rook pawn. [18]
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Position after ...Qa7+. Mate can be forced in 235 plies, but under the fifty-move rule the position is a draw. [19]

Knight pawn

Nunn, 2007, p. 151
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh

A knight pawn should be on at least the fifth rank to have good winning chances. A knight pawn on the fifth rank has better winning chances than a rook pawn on the sixth rank. There are two reasons for this:

The best place for the defending king is in front of the pawn and the second-best place is in the corner opposite its promotion square. [20]

Bishop pawn

Nunn, 2007, p. 152
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh

A bishop pawn offers the best winning chances. One reason is that there is no drawing zone in the opposite corner for the black king if the pawn is on at least the fourth rank. If the pawn is on the fifth rank the defender's chances are small unless the king is in front of the pawn. A pawn on the sixth rank wins unless the defending king is in front of the pawn. [21]

Central pawn

Nunn, 2007, p. 152
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh

A central pawn has better chances to win than a rook pawn or knight pawn, but not as good as a bishop pawn. As with the bishop pawn, there is no drawing zone for the defending king in the opposite corner. It is better for the defending king to be on the "short side" of the pawn rather than the "long side". [22]

Example of a long theoretical win involving a central pawn. [23]
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Position after ...Qh6+. Mate can be forced in 247 plies. [24]

Examples from games

Botvinnik vs. Ravinsky, Moscow (ch-USSR) 1944

Botvinnik vs. Ravinsky, 1944

In 1944, Botvinnik played a perfect endgame against Grigory Ravinsky. [25] The starting position, after 86...b1=Q, is winning.

87.Qa7+! [The only move that wins! [26] ] 87...Kf6 88.Qf7+ Ke5 89.Kh6 Qh1+ 90.Kg7 Kd4 91.Qf6+ Kc5 92.Kg8 Kb5 93.g7 Ka4 94.Kf7 Qh5+ 95.Ke7 Qc5+ 96.Qd6 Qg5+ 97.Kf8 Qf5+ 98.Ke8 Qh5+ 99.Kf8 Qf5+ 100.Ke7 Qg5+ 101.Qf6 Qc5+ 102.Kd7 Qd5+ 103.Kc7 Qa5+ 104.Kb7 Qb5+ 105.Qb6 Qd7+ 106.Qc7! Qb5+ 107.Ka7 Qd5 108.Kb8 Qg8+ 109.Ka7 Qd5 110.Qf4+ Ka5 111.Qf6 Qc5+ 112.Kb7 Qb5+ 113.Kc7 Qc5+ 114.Kd7 Qd5+ 115.Ke7 Qc5+ 116.Kf7 Qc4+ 117.Ke7 Qc5+ 118.Ke6 Qc8+ 119.Ke5 Qc3+ 120.Kf5 Qd3+ 121.Kg5 Qe3+ 122.Kg6 Qe8+ 123.Kh6 Qg8 124.Qe5+ Ka4 125.Kg6 Qc8 126.Qf4+ 1–0

A possible continuation, by endgame tablebases, could have been:

126...Kb3 127.Qf7+ Ka4 128.g8=Q Qg4+ 129.Kh6 Qh4+ 130.Kg7 Qg3+ 131.Kf8 Qd6+ 132.Qe7 Qh6+ 133.Qgg7 Qf4+ 134.Qgf7 Qb8+ 135.Qfe8++-[Exchanging queens.]

abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
After 135.Qfe8+

Botvinnik vs. Minev, Amsterdam (ol) 1954

Botvinnik vs. Minev, 1954

Ten years later, analyzing his adjourned game against Nikolay Minev, [27] Botvinnik improved the winning method. [28] But even then he erred two times (at 61 and 77). The position after 55...a1=Q is drawn. The game continued:

56.Qg4+ [26] Ka5 57.Qxe6 Qh8+ 58.Kg6 Qc3 59.g4 Qd2 60.g5 Qd4? [60...Ka4=] 61.Qf5+? [61.Kh7!+-] 61...Ka4= 62.Kh5 Qh8+ 63.Kg4 Qh1? [63...Ka3=] 64.Qf4++- Ka5 65.Qe5+ Ka4 66.g6 Qd1+ 67.Kg5 Qd8+ 68.Kf5 Qc8+ 69.Kf4 Qc1+ 70.Qe3 Qc7+ 71.Qe5 Qc1+ 72.Kf5 Qc8+ 73.Kg5 Qd8+ 74.Qf6 Qd5+ 75.Qf5! Qd8+ 76.Kh5 Qe8 77.Qf4+? [77.Kg4+-] 77...Ka5? [77...Ka3!=] 78.Qd2++- Ka4 79.Qd4+ Ka5 80.Kg5 Qe7+ 81.Kf5 Qf8+ 82.Ke4 Qh6 83.Qe5+ Ka4 84.g7 Qh1+ 85.Kd4 Qd1+ 86.Kc5 Qc1+ 87.Kd6 Qd2+ 88.Ke6 Qa2+ 89.Qd5 Qe2+ 90.Kd6 Qh2+ 91.Kc5 1–0

Now either a cross-check will force the exchange of queens, or else the pawn will promote.

Queen and two pawns versus a queen

This is usually a win for the two pawns, but victory can be difficult to achieve even in winning positions, as even the slightest inaccuracy may lead to perpetual check. Positions in which one of the pawns is vulnerable to attack may be drawn, but they are unusual. [29]

There are a number of other drawing exceptions, most notably with connected rook and knight pawns (a- & b-pawns, or g- & h-pawns) in which the defending king is ahead of the pawns. [30]

Lputian vs. Haroutjunian, 2001

An example is Smbat Lputian vs. Gevorg Harutjunyan, 2001. [32] The position after 86.h6 (the last pawn move of the game) is a draw. Play continued until move 142, with inaccuracies on both sides swinging the position from a draw to a forced win , and back again. Interestingly, Black could have claimed a draw by the fifty-move rule for the last several moves, including the final position in which he resigned, but he did not. [33]

Queen and two pawns versus a queen and pawn

Normally this is a win for the two pawns, but a surprising result of seven-piece Lomonosov tablebases is that the longest possible win requires 594 plies. In Kasparov versus the World, however, Kasparov was the side with a single pawn, but won because his pawn was far more advanced than the world team's pawns, which also hindered perpetual checks by them.

See also

Related Research Articles

The endgame is the final stage of a chess game which occurs after the middlegame. It begins when few pieces are left on the board.

The fifty-move rule in chess states that a player can claim a draw if no capture has been made and no pawn has been moved in the last fifty moves. The purpose of this rule is to prevent a player with no chance of winning from obstinately continuing to play indefinitely or seeking to win by tiring the opponent.

The Lucena position is one of the most famous and important positions in chess endgame theory, where one side has a rook and a pawn and the defender has a rook. Karsten Müller said that it may be the most important position in endgame theory. It is fundamental in the rook and pawn versus rook endgame. If the side with the pawn can reach this type of position, they can forcibly win the game. Most rook and pawn versus rook endgames reach either the Lucena position or the Philidor position if played accurately. The side with the pawn will try to reach the Lucena position to win; the other side will try to reach the Philidor position to draw.

The two knights endgame is a chess endgame with a king and two knights versus a king. In contrast to a king and two bishops, or a bishop and a knight, a king and two knights cannot force checkmate against a lone king. Although there are checkmate positions, a king and two knights cannot force them against proper, relatively easy defense.

Triangulation is a tactic used in chess to put one's opponent in zugzwang. Triangulation is also called losing a tempo or losing a move.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Philidor position</span> Chess endgame drawing technique

The Philidor position is a chess endgame involving a drawing technique for the defending side in the rook and pawn versus rook endgame. This technique is known as the third-rank defense due to the positioning of the defending rook. It was analyzed by François-André Danican Philidor in 1777. Many rook and pawn versus rook endgames reach either the drawn Philidor position or the winning Lucena position. The defending side should try to reach the Philidor position; the attacking side should try to reach the Lucena position. Said grandmaster Jesús de la Villa, "[The Lucena and Philidor positions] are the most important positions in this type of endgame [...] and in endgame theory."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tarrasch rule</span> General principle in chess

The Tarrasch rule is a general principle that applies in the majority of chess middlegames and endgames. Siegbert Tarrasch (1862–1934) stated the "rule" that rooks should be placed behind passed pawns – either the player's or the opponent's. The idea behind the guideline is that (1) if a player's rook is behind his passed pawn, the rook protects it as it advances, and (2) if it is behind an opponent's passed pawn, the pawn cannot advance unless it is protected along its way.

The chess endgame with a king and a pawn versus a king is one of the most important and fundamental endgames, other than the basic checkmates. It is an important endgame for chess players to master, since most other endgames have the potential of reducing to this type of endgame via exchanges of pieces. Players need to be able to determine quickly whether a given position is a win or a draw, and to know the technique for playing it. The crux of this endgame is whether or not the pawn can be promoted, so checkmate can be forced.

In chess, the exchange is the material difference of a rook for a minor piece. Having a rook for a minor piece is generally advantageous, since the rook is usually more valuable. A player who has a rook for a minor piece is said to be up the exchange, and the other player is down the exchange. A player who wins a rook for a minor piece is said to have won the exchange, while the other player has lost the exchange. The opposing captures often happen on consecutive moves, but this is not strictly necessary. Although it is generally detrimental to lose the exchange, one may occasionally find reason to purposely do so; the result is an exchange sacrifice.

In chess, a fortress is an endgame drawing technique in which the side behind in material sets up a zone of protection that the opponent cannot penetrate. This might involve keeping the enemy king out of one's position, or a zone the enemy cannot force one out of. An elementary fortress is a theoretically drawn position with reduced material in which a passive defense will maintain the draw.

The rook and pawn versus rook endgame is a fundamentally important, widely studied chess endgame. Precise play is usually required in these positions. With optimal play, some complicated wins require sixty moves to either checkmate, capture the defending rook, or successfully promote the pawn. In some cases, thirty-five moves are required to advance the pawn once.

The chess endgame of a queen versus pawn is usually an easy win for the side with the queen. However, if the pawn has advanced to its seventh rank it has possibilities of reaching a draw, and there are some drawn positions with the pawn on the sixth rank. This endgame arises most often from a race of pawns to promote.

The opposite-colored bishops endgame is a chess endgame in which each side has a single bishop and those bishops operate on opposite-colored squares. Without other pieces besides pawns and the kings, these endings are widely known for their tendency to result in a draw. These are the most difficult endings in which to convert a small material advantage to a win. With additional pieces, the stronger side has more chances to win, but still not as many as when bishops are on the same color.

A pawnless chess endgame is a chess endgame in which only a few pieces remain, and no pawns. The basic checkmates are types of pawnless endgames. Endgames without pawns do not occur very often in practice except for the basic checkmates of king and queen versus king, king and rook versus king, and queen versus rook. Other cases that occur occasionally are (1) a rook and minor piece versus a rook and (2) a rook versus a minor piece, especially if the minor piece is a bishop.

Much literature about chess endgames has been produced in the form of books and magazines. A bibliography of endgame books is below.

The rook and bishop versus rook endgame is a chess endgame where one player has just a king, a rook, and a bishop, and the other player has just a king and a rook. This combination of material is one of the most common pawnless chess endgames. It is generally a theoretical draw, but the rook and bishop have good winning chances in practice because the defense is difficult. Ulf Andersson won the position twice within a year, once against a grandmaster and once against a candidate master; and grandmaster Keith Arkell has won it 27 times out of 27. In positions that have a forced win, up to 59 moves are required. Tony Kosten has seen the endgame many times in master games, with the stronger side almost always winning. Pal Benko called this the "headache ending." David Howell observed, "Especially below elite grandmaster level, this is one of the hardest endgames to draw."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chess theory</span> Basic chess fundamentals and ideas developed to better understand the game

The game of chess is commonly divided into three phases: the opening, middlegame, and endgame. There is a large body of theory regarding how the game should be played in each of these phases, especially the opening and endgame. Those who write about chess theory, who are often also eminent players, are referred to as "theorists" or "theoreticians".

In a chess endgame of a king, bishop, and pawn versus king, a wrong rook pawn is a rook pawn whose promotion square is the opposite color from the bishop's square color. Since a side's rook pawns promote on opposite-colored squares, one of them may be the "wrong rook pawn". This situation is also known as having the wrong-colored bishop or wrong bishop. In many cases, the wrong rook pawn will only draw, when any other pawn would win. This is because the defending side can sometimes get their king to the corner in front of the pawn, after which the attacking side cannot chase the king away to enable promotion. A fairly common defensive tactic is to reach one of these drawn endgames, often through a sacrifice.

In a chess endgame, a wrong bishop is a bishop that would have been better placed on the opposite square color. This most commonly occurs with a bishop and one of its rook pawns, but it also occurs with a rook versus a bishop, a rook and one rook pawn versus a bishop, and possibly with a rook and one bishop pawn versus a bishop.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kasparov's Immortal</span> Chess game played by Garry Kasparov

Kasparov's immortal is a chess game played by Garry Kasparov as White against Veselin Topalov as Black at the Hoogovens Wijk aan Zee Chess Tournament 1999 chess tournament. This is one of Kasparov's most famous games; it is considered a masterpiece and Chess.com has listed it as the No. 1 chess game ever played.

References

  1. Nunn 2007 , p. 148
  2. Müller & Lamprecht 2001 , p. 316
  3. Dvoretsky 2006 , p. 250
  4. Nunn 2007 , p. 148
  5. Averbakh, Henkin & Chekhover 1986 , pp. 29–30
  6. Nunn 2007 , p. 148
  7. Nunn 1995 , p. 265
  8. Nunn 2010 , p. 299
  9. Fine & Benko 2003 , p. 538
  10. Müller & Lamprecht 2001 , p. 316
  11. Nunn 2007 , pp. 148–153, 248–249
  12. Speelman, Tisdall & Wade 1993 , p. 7
  13. Mednis 1987 , pp. 126–127, 134
  14. Nunn 2010 , p. 299
  15. Mednis 1996 , p. 93
  16. Nunn 2007 , p. 150
  17. Mednis 1996 , pp. 115–117
  18. Thompson 1986, p. 138
  19. Syzygy endgame tablebases 2020a
  20. Nunn 2007 , pp. 150–151
  21. Nunn 2007 , pp. 151–152
  22. Nunn 2007 , pp. 152–153
  23. See Kryukov (2008).
  24. Syzygy endgame tablebases 2020b
  25. "Mikhail Botvinnik vs Grigory Ravinsky". Chessgames.com . Chessgames Services LLC. Retrieved March 2, 2023.
  26. 1 2 Nunn's annotation convention is used
  27. "Mikhail Botvinnik vs Nikolay Minev". Chessgames.com . Chessgames Services LLC. Retrieved March 2, 2023.
  28. Dvoretsky 2006 , pp. 250–251
  29. Nunn 2010 , p. 307
  30. Nunn 2010 , p. 303
  31. Nunn 2010, p. 303
  32. Lputian vs. Harutjunyan, Yerevan (ch-ARM) 2001
  33. Nunn 2010 , pp. 303–307

Bibliography