Editing Chess endgame (section)

==Common types of endgames==

===Endings with no pawns===
====Basic checkmates====
{{main|Checkmate}}
Many endings without pawns have been [[Solved game|solved]], that is, best play for both sides from any starting position can be determined, and the outcome (win, loss, or draw) is known. For example, the following are all wins for the side with pieces:
#[[Checkmate#King and queen|king and queen against a king]]—A queen, with its king, can easily [[checkmate]] a lone king.
#[[Checkmate#King and rook|king and rook against a king]]
#[[Checkmate#King and two bishops|king and two bishops of opposite color against a king]]
#[[bishop and knight checkmate|king, bishop, and knight against a king]]

See [[wikibooks:Chess/The Endgame|Wikibooks&nbsp;– Chess/The Endgame]] for a demonstration of the first two checkmates, which are generally taught in textbooks as basic knowledge. The last two are sometimes taught as basic knowledge as well, although the [[Bishop and knight checkmate|procedure for mate with bishop and knight]] is relatively difficult and many tournament players do not know it.{{citation needed|date=January 2023}}

====Other endings with no pawns====
{{main|Pawnless chess endgames}}

The ending of king and bishop versus king is a trivial draw, in that checkmate is not even possible. Likewise for king and [[Knight (chess)|knight]] versus king.

Two knights cannot force checkmate against a lone king (see [[Two knights endgame]]). While there is a board position that allows two knights to checkmate a lone king, such requires a careless move by the weaker side to execute. If the weaker side also has material (besides the king), checkmate is sometimes possible.<ref>{{Harvcol|Troitzky|2006|pp=197–257}}</ref> The winning chances with two knights are insignificant except against a few pawns. ({{cite journal|url=http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/27847/|title=Western Chess:Endgame Data|date=2009|last=Haworth|first=Guy M<sup>c</sup>C|website=CentAUR}}) The procedure can be long and difficult. In competition, the [[fifty-move rule]] will often result in the game being drawn first.

The endgame of king and three knights against king will not normally occur in a game, but it is of theoretical interest. The three knights win.<ref>{{Harvcol|Fine|1941|pp=5–6}}</ref>

{{Chess diagram  
|tright
|Fine & Benko, diagram 967
|kd|  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|nd|  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|kl|  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |rl|  |  |  |  |  |  
|White to play wins (Kb6); Black to play draws (...Nc8).
}}

Two of the most common pawnless endgames (when the defense has a piece in addition to the king) are (1) a queen versus a rook and (2) a rook and bishop versus a rook. A queen wins against a rook — see [[Queen versus rook endgame]]. A rook and bishop versus a rook is generally a [[chess theory|theoretical]] draw, but the defense is difficult and there are winning positions (see [[Rook and bishop versus rook endgame]]).
{{clear}}

===King and pawn endings===
'''King and pawn endgames''' involve only [[king (chess)|kings]] and [[pawn (chess)|pawns]] on one or both sides. [[International Master]] [[Cecil Purdy]] said, "Pawn endings are to chess as putting is to golf." Any endgame with pieces and pawns has the possibility of {{chessgloss|simplifying}} into a pawn ending.<ref>{{Harvcol|Nunn|2010|p=43}}</ref>

In king and pawn endings, an extra pawn is decisive in more than 90 percent of the cases.<ref>{{Harvcol|Euwe|Meiden|1978|p=xvi}}</ref> Getting a [[passed pawn]] is crucial (a ''passed pawn'' is one which does not have an opposing pawn on its file or on adjacent files on its way to promotion). [[Aron Nimzowitsch|Nimzowitch]] once said that a passed pawn has a "lust to expand". An ''{{chessgloss|outside passed pawn}}'' is particularly deadly. The point of this is a [[deflection (chess)|deflection]] – while the defending king is preventing the outside passed pawn from queening, the attacking king wins pawns on the other side.

''[[Opposition (chess)|Opposition]]'' is an important technique that is used to gain an advantage. When two kings are in opposition, they are on the same {{chessgloss|file}} (or {{chessgloss|rank}}) with one empty square separating them. The player having the move ''loses'' the opposition. That player must move the king and allow the opponent's king to advance. However, the opposition is a means to an end, which is penetration into the enemy position. The attacker should try to penetrate with or without the opposition. The tactics of [[triangulation (chess)|triangulation]] and [[zugzwang]] as well as the theory of [[corresponding squares]] are often decisive.

Unlike most positions, king and pawn endgames can usually be analyzed to a definite conclusion, given enough skill and time. An error in a king and pawn endgame almost always turns a win into a draw or a draw into a loss – there is little chance for recovery. Accuracy is most important in these endgames. There are three fundamental ideas in these endgames: [[opposition (chess)|opposition]], [[triangulation (chess)|triangulation]], and the [[Réti endgame study|Réti manoeuvre]].<ref>{{Harvcol|Nunn|2007|pp=113ff}}</ref>

====King and pawn versus king====
{{main|King and pawn versus king endgame}}
{| align="right" border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0"
|-valign="top"
|
{{Chess diagram small
|tright
|Müller & Lamprecht, <br />diagram 2.11
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|kl|  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|pl|  |  |kd|  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|White to move wins with 1.Kb6. Black to move draws with 1...Kc5.
}}
|
{{Chess diagram small
|tright
|Müller & Lamprecht<ref>{{harvcol|Müller|Lamprecht|2001}}</ref> <br />diagram 2.03 
|  |  |  |kd|  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |kl|pl|  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|White to play draws. Black to play loses after 1...Ke8 2.e7 Kf7 3.Kd7 and the pawn queens.
}}
|}
This is one of the most basic endgames. A draw results if the defending king can reach the square in front of the pawn or the square in front of that (or capture the pawn).<ref>{{Harvcol|Müller|Lamprecht|2007|pp=16,21}}</ref> If the attacking king can prevent that, the king will assist the pawn in being [[promotion (chess)|promoted]] to a queen or rook, and checkmate can be achieved. A {{chessgloss|rook pawn}} is an exception because the king may not be able to get out of the way of its pawn.
{{clear}}

===Knight and pawn endings===
'''[[knight (chess)|Knight]] and pawn endgames''' feature clever manoeuvring by the knights to capture opponent pawns. While a knight is poor at chasing a passed pawn, it is the ideal piece to block a passed pawn. Knights cannot lose a [[tempo (chess)|tempo]], so knight and pawn endgames have much in common with king and pawn endgames. As a result, [[Mikhail Botvinnik]] stated, “A knight ending is really a pawn ending.”<ref>{{Harvcol|Beliavsky|Mikhalchishin|2003|p=139}}</ref>

====Knight and pawn versus knight====
{{Chess diagram  
|tright
|Fine & Benko, diagram 228
|kd|  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |kl|  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|nd|pl|nl|  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|White to play wins; Black to play draws.
}}
This is generally a draw since the knight can be sacrificed for the pawn, however, the king and knight must be covering squares in the pawn's path. If the pawn reaches the seventh rank and is supported by its king and knight, it usually [[promotion (chess)|promotes]] and wins. In this position, White to move wins: '''1. b6 Nb7! 2. Ne6! Na5 3. Kc8! N-any 4. Nc7#'''. If Black plays the knight to any other square on move 2, White plays Kc8 anyway, threatening b7+ and promotion if the knight leaves the defense of the b7 square. Black to move draws starting with '''1... Nc4''' because White cannot gain a [[tempo (chess)|tempo]].<ref>{{Harvcol|Fine|Benko|2003|pp=112–14}}</ref>
{{clear}}

===Bishop and pawn endings===
{{Chess diagram  
|tright
|Molnar vs. Nagy, 1966
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |kd|bd|  |pd
|  |  |pd|  |  |  |pd|pl
|  |pd|pl|  |pl|  |pl|  
|  |pl|  |  |  |kl|  |  
|  |bl|  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|White to move. White has a ''good bishop'', Black has a ''bad'' one.}}

[[Bishop (chess)|Bishop]] and pawn endgames come in two distinctly different variants. If the opposing bishops go on the same color of square, the mobility of the bishops is a crucial factor. A ''{{chessgloss|bad bishop}}'' is one that is hemmed in by pawns of its own color, and has the burden of defending them.

The adjacent diagram, from Molnar–Nagy, Hungary 1966, illustrates the concepts of good bishop versus bad bishop, opposition, [[zugzwang]], and outside passed pawn. White wins with '''1. e6!''' (vacating e5 for his king) '''1... Bxe6 2. Bc2!''' (threatening Bxg6) '''2... Bf7 3. Be4!''' (threatening Bxc6) '''3... Be8 4. Ke5!''' (seizing the opposition [i.e. the kings are two orthogonal squares apart, with the other player on move] and placing Black in zugzwang—he must either move his king, allowing White's king to penetrate, or his bishop, allowing a decisive incursion by White's bishop) '''4... Bd7 5. Bxg6!'''
{{clear}}

====Bishop and pawn versus bishop on the same color====
{| align="right" border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0"
|-valign="top"
|
{{Chess diagram small
|tright
|Centurini
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |kl|  
|  |  |  |  |  |pl|  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |kd|bd
|  |  |bl|  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|Draw
}}
|
{{Chess diagram small
|tright
|Centurini, 1856
|  |  |kl|bl|  |  |  |  
|  |pl|  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |kd|  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |bd
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|Centurini showed how White to move wins.  White also wins if Black is to move.<ref>{{Harvcol|Müller|Lamprecht|2001|p=13}}</ref>
}}
|}
Two rules given by [[Luigi Centurini]] in the 19th century apply:
* The game is a draw if the defending king can reach any square in front of the pawn that is opposite in color to the squares the bishops travel on.
* If the defending king is behind the pawn and the attacking king is near the pawn, the defender can draw only if his king is attacking the pawn, he has the opposition, and his bishop can move on two diagonals that each have at least two squares available (other than the square it is on).<ref>{{Harvcol|Fine|Benko|2003|p=152}}</ref> This is the case for {{chessgloss|center pawn|central pawns}} and the {{chessgloss|bishop pawn}} whose promotion square is not the same color as the bishop.<ref>{{Harvcol|Fine|Benko|2003|p=154}}</ref>

The position in the second diagram shows a winning position for White, although it requires accurate play. A {{chessgloss|knight pawn}} always wins if the defending bishop only has one long diagonal available.<ref>{{Harvcol|Fine|Benko|2003|pp=155–56}}</ref>
{{clear}}

{{Chess diagram  
|tright
|Portisch vs. Tal, 1965
|  |  |  |kd|  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|kl|  |  |  |  |  |pd|  
|bl|  |bd|  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|Position before 67.Bd5
}}
This position was reached in a game from the 1965 [[Candidates Tournament]] between [[Lajos Portisch]] and former [[World Chess Champion|World Champion]] [[Mikhail Tal]].<ref>[http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1113167 Portisch vs. Tal]</ref> White must defend accurately and utilize [[Zugzwang#Reciprocal zugzwang|reciprocal zugzwang]]. Often he has only one or two moves that avoid a losing position. Black was unable to make any progress and the game was drawn on move 83.<ref>{{Harvcol|Nunn|1995|p=169}}</ref>
{{clear}}

====Bishops on opposite colors====
{{main|Opposite-colored bishops endgame}}
{{Chess diagram  
|tright
|
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |kd|  |bd|  |  |  
|  |  |pl|  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |kl|pl|  |  |bl
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|White to play, a draw.  White wins if the pawn is on f5 instead of e5.<ref>{{Harvcol|Fine|Benko|2003|pp=184–92}}</ref>
}}
Endings with ''bishops of opposite color'', meaning that one bishop works on the light squares, the other one working on dark squares, are notorious for their {{chessgloss|drawish}} character. Many players in a poor position have saved themselves from a loss by trading down to such an endgame. They are often drawn even when one side has a two-pawn advantage, since the weaker side can create a blockade on the squares on which his bishop operates. The weaker side should often try to make their bishop ''{{chessgloss|bad bishop|bad}}'' by placing their pawns on the same color of their bishop in order to defend their remaining pawns, thereby creating an impregnable [[fortress (chess)|fortress]].
{{clear}}

===Bishop versus knight endings (with pawns)===
Current [[chess theory|theory]] is that bishops are better than knights about 60 percent of the time in the endgame. The more symmetrical the [[pawn structure]], the better it is for the knight. The knight is best suited at an outpost in the center, particularly where it cannot easily be driven away, whereas the bishop is strongest when it can attack targets on both sides of the board or a series of squares of the same color.<ref>{{Harvcol|Beliavsky|Mikhalchishin|1995|p=122}}</ref>

Fine and Benko<ref>{{Harvcol|Fine|Benko|2003|p=205}}</ref> give four conclusions:
# In general the bishop is better than the knight.
# When there is a material advantage, the difference between the bishop and knight is not very important. However, the bishop usually wins more easily than the knight.
# If the material is even, the position should be drawn. However, the bishop can exploit positional advantages more efficiently.
# When most of the pawns are on the same color as the bishop (i.e. a bad bishop), the knight is better.

====Bishop and pawn versus knight====
{{Chess diagram  
|tright
|Müller & Lamprecht, diagram 5.02
|  |  |kd|  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |pl|  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |kl|  |  |  |nd
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |bl
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|White to move wins; Black to move draws.
}}
This is a draw if the defending king is in front of the pawn or sufficiently close. The defending king can occupy a square in front of the pawn of the opposite color as the bishop and cannot be driven away. Otherwise the attacker can win.<ref>{{Harvcol|Fine|Benko|2003|p=206}}</ref>
{{clear}}

====Knight and pawn versus bishop====
{{Chess diagram  
|tright
|Muller & Lamprecht, diagram 5.23 <br />(from Fine, 1941)
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |kl|pl|  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |nl|  |  |  |bd
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |kd|  |  
|White to move wins; Black to move draws.
}}
This is a draw if the defending king is in front of the pawn or sufficiently near. The bishop is kept on a diagonal that the pawn must cross, and the knight cannot both block the bishop and drive the defending king away. Otherwise, the attacker can win.<ref>{{Harvcol|Fine|Benko|2003|p=209}}</ref>
{{clear}}

===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>

===Queen and pawn endings===
In '''[[queen (chess)|queen]] and pawn endings''', [[passed pawns]] have paramount importance, because the queen can escort it to the queening square alone. The advancement of the passed pawn outweighs the number of pawns. The defender must resort to [[perpetual check]]. These endings are frequently extremely long affairs. For an example of a queen and pawn endgame see [[Kasparov versus the World]] – Kasparov won although he had fewer pawns because his was more advanced. For the ending with a queen versus a pawn, see [[Queen versus pawn endgame]].

====Queen and pawn versus queen====
{{main|Queen and pawn versus queen endgame}}
{{Chess diagram  
|tright
|Müller & Lamprecht, diagram 9.12A
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |ql|kl|  
|  |  |kd|  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |pl
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |qd|  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|White to play wins; Black to play draws.
}}
The queen and pawn versus queen endgame is the second most common of the "piece and pawn versus piece" endgames, after [[rook and pawn versus rook endgame|rook and pawn versus rook]]. It is very complicated and difficult to play. Human analysts were not able to make a complete analysis before the advent of [[endgame tablebase]]s.<ref>{{Harvcol|Nunn|2007|p=148}}</ref> This combination is a win less frequently than the equivalent ending with rooks.
{{clear}}

===Rook versus a minor piece===
{{Chess diagram  
|tright
|[[André Chéron (chess player)|Chéron]], 1926
|  |  |  |  |rl|  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |bd|  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |kd|  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |pd|pd|  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |kl|  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|White to play draws; Black to play wins.<ref>{{Harvcol|Müller|Lamprecht|2001|p=273}}</ref>
}}
The difference in {{chessgloss|material}} between a rook and a {{chessgloss|minor piece}} is about two points or a little less, the equivalent of two pawns.
* A rook and a pawn versus a minor piece: normally a win for the rook but there are some draws. In particular, if the pawn is on its sixth rank and is a {{chessgloss|bishop pawn}} or {{chessgloss|rook pawn}}, and the bishop does not control the pawn's promotion square, the position is a draw.<ref>{{Harvcol|de la Villa|2008|p=221}}</ref> See [[Wrong bishop]].
* A rook versus a minor piece: normally a draw but in some cases the rook wins, see [[pawnless chess endgame]].
* A rook versus a minor piece and one pawn: usually a draw but the rook may win.
* A rook versus a minor piece and two pawns: usually a draw but the minor piece may win.
* A rook versus a minor piece and three pawns: a win for the minor piece.

If both sides have pawns, the result essentially depends on how many pawns the minor piece has for [[The exchange (chess)|the exchange]]:
* No pawns for the exchange (i.e. same number of pawns on each side): the rook usually wins.
* One pawn for the exchange (i.e. minor piece has one more pawn): the rook usually wins, but it is technically difficult. If all of the pawns are on one side of the board it is usually a draw.
* Two pawns for the exchange: this is normally a draw. With a bishop either side may have winning chances. With a knight, the rook may have winning chances and the defense is difficult for the knight if the pawns are scattered.
* Three pawns for the exchange: this is normally a win for the minor piece.<ref>{{Harvcol|Fine|Benko|2003|pp=459ff}}</ref>

===Two minor pieces versus a rook===
{{Chess diagram  
|tright
|[[José Raúl Capablanca|Capablanca]] vs. [[Emanuel Lasker|Lasker]], 1914<ref>[http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1258182 Capablanca vs. Lasker, 1914] [[Chessgames.com]]</ref>
|  |  |  |  |  |  |kd|  
|  |  |  |  |  |pd|pd|pd
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |nl|  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |rd|  |  |  |pl|  |  
|  |  |  |bl|  |  |pl|pl
|  |  |  |  |  |  |kl|  
|Black to play draws.<ref>{{Harvcol|Müller|Lamprecht|2001|p=23}}</ref>
}}
In an endgame, two {{chessgloss|minor pieces}} are approximately equivalent to a rook plus one pawn. The [[pawn structure]] is important. The two pieces have the advantage if the opponent's pawns are weak. [[Initiative (chess)|Initiative]] is more important in this endgame than any other. The general outcome can be broken down by the number of pawns.
* The two pieces have one or more extra pawns: always a win for the pieces.
* Same number of pawns: usually a draw but the two pieces win more often than the rook.
* The rook has one extra pawn: usually a draw but either side may have winning chances, depending on positional factors.
* The rook has two additional pawns: normally a win for the rook.<ref>{{Harvcol|Fine|Benko|2003|pp=449–58}}</ref>
{{clear}}

===Queen versus two rooks===
{{Chess diagram  
|tright
|[[Peter Leko|Leko]] vs. [[Vladimir Kramnik|Kramnik]], [[Classical World Chess Championship 2004|World Ch. 2004]]<ref>[http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1306138 Leko vs. Kramnik]</ref>
|rd|  |  |  |  |  |kd|  
|  |  |  |  |  |pd|  |pd
|  |  |  |  |  |  |pd|  
|rd|  |  |  |  |  |  |pl
|  |  |  |  |  |ql|pl|  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |kl|  
|  |  |  |  |  |pl|  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|In this position, Kramnik (Black) played g5 and h6, maneuvered a rook to f4, and eventually captured White's [[backward pawn|backward]] f-pawn. He won after a blunder forced the trade of queen and rooks, and Leko resigned.
}}
Without pawns this is normally drawn, but either side wins in some positions. A queen and pawn are normally equivalent to two rooks, which is usually a draw if both sides have an equal number of additional pawns. Two rooks plus one pawn versus a queen is also generally drawn. Otherwise, if either side has an additional pawn, that side normally wins.<ref>{{Harvcol|Fine|Benko|2003|pp=566–67}}</ref> While playing for a draw, the defender (the side with fewer pawns) should try to avoid situations in which the queen and rooks are forcibly traded into a losing [[#King and pawn endings|king and pawn endgame]].
{{clear}}

===Queen versus rook and minor piece===
{{Chess diagram  
|tright
|[[Loek van Wely|van Wely]] vs. [[Artur Yusupov (chess player)|Yusupov]], 2000<ref>[http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1385607 Van Wely vs. Yusupov] [[Chessgames.com]]</ref>
|  |  |  |  |  |  |kd|  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |rl|pd|  |pd|  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |pd|  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |qd|  |pl|bl|pl|  
|  |  |  |  |  |pl|kl|  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|Black to move won.
}}
If there are no pawns, the position is usually drawn, but either side wins in some positions. A queen is equivalent to a rook and bishop plus one pawn. If the queen has an additional pawn it wins, but with difficulty. A rook and bishop plus two pawns win over a queen.<ref>{{Harvcol|Fine|Benko|2003|p=563}}</ref>
{{clear}}

===Queen versus rook===
{{main|Queen versus rook endgame}}
{| align="right" border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0"
|-valign="top"
|
{{Chess diagram small
|tright
|Philidor, 1777
|  |kd|  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |rd|  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |kl|  |  |  |  |  
|ql|  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|White wins with either side to move.
}}
|
{{Chess diagram small
|tright
|D. Ponziani, 1782
|  |  |  |  |  |kd|  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |rd|  
|  |  |  |  |ql|  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |kl  
|Black to move draws.<ref>{{Harvcol|Müller|Lamprecht|2001}}</ref>
}}
|}
* Without pawns, the queen normally wins but it can be difficult and there are some drawn positions (see {{seclink|Philidor position|Queen versus rook}}).
* If the rook has one pawn drawing positions are possible, depending on the pawn and the proximity of the rook and king. See {{seclink|Fortress (chess)|Rook and pawn versus queen}}. Otherwise the queen wins.
* If the rook has two [[connected pawns]] the position is usually a draw. For any other two pawns, the queen wins except in the positions where a fortress with one pawn can be reached.
* If the rook has three or more pawns the position is usually a draw but there are cases in which the queen wins and some in which the rook wins.
* If the queen also has a pawn or pawns it wins except in unusual positions.<ref>{{Harvcol|Fine|Benko|2003|pp=570–79}}</ref>
{{clear}}

===Piece versus pawns===
{| align="right" border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0"
|-valign="top"
|
{{Chess diagram small
|tright
|[[Johann Berger]], 1914 <br />(Fine & Benko, diagram 1053)
|ql|  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |pd|pd|kd
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |pd
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|kl|  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|White to play wins. 
}}
|
{{Chess diagram small
|tright
| <br />Fine & Benko, diagram 1054
|  |ql|  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |pd|pd|kd
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |pd
|kl|  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|White to play; Black wins. 
}}
|}
There are many cases for a lone piece versus pawns. The position of the pawns is critical.
* Minor piece versus pawns: A minor piece versus one or two pawns is normally a draw, unless the pawns are advanced. Three pawns either draw or win, depending on how advanced they are. Three connected pawns win against a bishop if they all get past their fourth rank.<ref>{{Harvcol|Fine|Benko|2003|pp=93ff,129–30}}</ref> A knight can draw against three connected pawns if none are beyond their fourth rank.<ref>{{Harvcol|Müller|Lamprecht|2001|p=62}}</ref>
* Rook versus pawns: If the rook's king is not near, one pawn draws and two pawns win. If the rook's king is near, the rook wins over one or two pawns and draws against three. Four pawns usually win but the rook may be able to draw, depending on their position. More than four pawns win against the rook.<ref>{{Harvcol|Fine|Benko|2003|pp=275,292–93}}</ref>
* Queen versus pawns: A queen can win against any number of pawns, depending on how advanced they are. The queen would win against eight pawns on the second rank but one pawn on the seventh rank may draw (see [[Queen versus pawn endgame]]) and two advanced pawns may win.<ref>{{Harvcol|Fine|Benko|2003|pp=526ff}}</ref>
{{clear}}