Editing Chess endgame (section)

===Rook and pawn endings===
[[File:Ладейник в цейтноте, Москва, Лужники (25.06.2022).jpg|270px|thumb|Rook ending in [[Moscow]], Russia. White has two additional pawns, White to move]]
Rook and pawn endgames are often drawn in spite of one side having an extra pawn. (In some cases, two extra pawns are not enough to win.) An extra pawn is harder to convert to a win in a rook and pawn endgame than any other type of endgame except a bishop endgame with bishops on opposite colors. Rook endings are probably the deepest and most well studied endgames. They are a common type of endgame in practice, occurring in about 10 percent of all games (including ones that do not reach an endgame).<ref>{{Harvcol|Emms|2008|p=7}}</ref> These endgames occur frequently because rooks are often the last pieces to be exchanged. The ability to play these endgames well is a major factor distinguishing masters from amateurs.<ref>{{Harvcol|Nunn|2007|p=125}}</ref> When both sides have two rooks and pawns, the stronger side usually has more winning chances than if each had only one rook.<ref>{{Harvcol|Emms|2008|p=141}}</ref>

Three rules of thumb regarding rooks are worth noting:
# Rooks should almost always be placed behind passed pawns, whether one's own or the opponent's (the [[Tarrasch rule]]). A notable exception is in the ending of a rook and pawn versus a rook, if the pawn is not too far advanced. In that case, the best place for the opposing rook is in front of the pawn.
# Rooks are very poor defenders relative to their attacking strength, so it is often good to sacrifice a pawn for activity.
# A rook on the seventh rank can wreak mayhem among the opponent's pawns. The power of a rook on the seventh rank is not confined to the endgame. The classic example is [[José Raúl Capablanca|Capablanca]] versus [[Savielly Tartakower|Tartakower]], New York 1924 (see [http://www.lifemasteraj.com/old_af-dl/gcg_sh_capa-tart.html annotated game without diagrams] or [http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1102104 Java board])

An important winning position in the [[rook and pawn versus rook endgame]] is the so-called [[Lucena position]]. If the side with the pawn can reach the Lucena position, he wins. There are several important drawing techniques, however, such as the [[Philidor position]], the ''back-rank defense'' (rook on the first rank, for {{chessgloss|rook pawns}} and {{chessgloss|knight pawns}} only), the ''frontal defense'', and the ''short-side defense''. A general rule is that if the weaker side's king can get to the queening square of the pawn, the game is a draw and otherwise it is a win, but there are many exceptions.

====Rook and pawn versus rook====
{{main|Rook and pawn versus rook endgame}}
{{Chess diagram  
|tright
|Fine & Benko, diagram 646
|  |  |  |  |kl|  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |pl|  |kd|  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|rd|  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |rl|  |  
|White to play wins because of the [[Lucena position]].  Black to play draws with 1...Ra8+, either because of [[perpetual check]] or winning the pawn.
}}
Generally (but not always), if the defending king can reach the queening square of the pawn the game is a draw (see [[Philidor position]]), otherwise the attacker usually wins (if it is not a rook pawn) (see [[Lucena position]]).<ref>{{Harvcol|Fine|Benko|2003|p=294}}</ref> The winning procedure can be very difficult and some positions require up to sixty moves to win.<ref>{{Harvcol|Speelman|Tisdall|Wade|1993|p=7}}</ref> If the attacking rook is two files from the pawn and the defending king is cut off on the other side, the attacker normally wins (with a few exceptions).<ref>{{Harvcol|Fine|Benko|2003|p=294}}</ref> The rook and pawn versus rook is the most common of the "piece and pawn versus piece" endgames.<ref>{{Harvcol|Nunn|2007|p=148}}</ref>

The most difficult case of a rook and pawn versus a rook occurs when the attacking rook is one file over from the pawn and the defending king is cut off on the other side. [[Siegbert Tarrasch]] gave the following rules for this case: <blockquote>For a player defending against a pawn on the fifth or even sixth ranks to obtain a draw, even after his king has been forced off the queening square, the following conditions must obtain: The file on which the pawn stands divides the board into two unequal parts. The defending rook must stand in the longer part and give checks from the flank at the greatest possible distance from the attacking king. Nothing less than a distance of three files makes it possible for the rook to keep on giving check. Otherwise it would ultimately be attacked by the king. The defending king must stand on the smaller part of the board.</blockquote>

(See the ''short side defense'' at [[Rook and pawn versus rook endgame]].)

====Quotation====
*"All rook and pawn endings are drawn."

The context of this quote shows it is a comment on the fact that a small advantage in a rook and pawn endgame is less likely to be converted into a win. Mark Dvoretsky said that the statement is "semi-joking, semi-serious".<ref>{{Harvcol|Dvoretsky|Yusupov|2008|p=159}}</ref> This quotation has variously been attributed to [[Savielly Tartakower]] and to [[Siegbert Tarrasch]]. Writers [[Victor Korchnoi]],<ref>{{Harvcol|Korchnoi|2002|p=29}}</ref> [[John Emms (chess player)|John Emms]],<ref>{{Harvcol|Emms|2008|p=41}}</ref> and [[James Howell (chess player)|James Howell]],<ref>{{Harvcol|Howell|1997|p=36}}</ref> attribute the quote to Tartakower, whereas Dvoretsky,<ref>{{Harvcol|Dvoretsky|2006|p=158}}</ref> [[Andrew Soltis]],<ref>{{Harvcol|Soltis|2003|p=52}}</ref> [[Karsten Müller]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.chesscafe.com/text/mueller01.pdf|title=Endgame Corner|first=Karsten|last=Müller|year=2001|publisher=Chess Cafe}}</ref> and Kaufeld & Kern<ref>{{Harvcol|Kaufeld|Kern|2011|p=167}}</ref> attribute it to Tarrasch. [[John L. Watson|John Watson]] attributed to Tarrasch "by legend" and says that statistics do not support the statement.<ref>{{Harvcol|Watson|1998|pp=81–82}}</ref> [[Pal Benko|Benko]] wonders if it was due to [[Vasily Smyslov]].<ref>{{Harvcol|Benko|2007|p=186}}</ref> Attributing the quote to Tarrasch may be a result of confusion between this quote and the [[Tarrasch rule]] concerning rooks. The source of the quote is currently unresolved.<ref>Winter, Edward, [http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/winter45.html "Rook endgames"]&nbsp;– Chess Notes, Number 5498</ref> Benko noted that although the saying is usually said with tongue in cheek, it is truer in practice than one might think.<ref>{{Harvcol|Benko|2007|p=189}}</ref>