Pawnless chess endgame

A pawnless chess endgame is a chess endgame in which only a few pieces remain and none of them is a pawn. 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 (Hooper 1970:4). 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 (Nunn 2007:156–65).

The study of some pawnless endgames goes back centuries by players such as François-André Danican Philidor (1726–1795) and
Domenico Lorenzo Ponziani (1719–1796). On the other hand, many of the details and recent results are due to the construction of
endgame tablebases. Grandmaster John Nunn wrote a book (Secrets of Pawnless Endings) summarizing the research of endgame
tablebases for several types of pawnless endings.

The assessment of endgame positions assumes optimal play by both sides. In some cases, one side of these endgames can force a
win; in other cases, the game is a draw (i.e. a book draw).

Contents
Terminology
Basic checkmates
Queen versus rook
Example from game
Browne versus BELLE
Queen versus two minor pieces
Common pawnless endings (rook and minor pieces)
Miscellaneous pawnless endings
Queens only
Major pieces only
Queens and rooks with minor pieces
Queens and minor pieces
Examples from games
Example from a study
Rooks and minor pieces
Minor pieces only
Example from game

Examples with an extra minor piece

Summary
Fine's rule
General remarks on these endings
Tables
See also
Notes
References
Further reading
 External links

Terminology
Major pieces are queens and rooks. Minor pieces are knights and bishops.
A rank is a row of squares on the chessboard. A file is a column of squares on the board.
If a player has two bishops, they are assumed to be on opposite colors unless stated otherwise.
When the number of moves to win is specified, optimal play by both sides is assumed. The number of moves given to win is until
either checkmate or the position is converted to a simpler position that is known to be a win. For example, with a queen versus a
rook, that would be until either checkmate or the rook is captured, resulting in a position that leads to an elementary checkmate.

Basic checkmates
Checkmate can be forced against a lone king with a king plus (1) a queen, (2) a rook, (3) two bishops, or (4) a bishop and a knight
(see Bishop and knight checkmate). See Checkmate for more details. Checkmate is possible with two knights, but it cannot be
forced. (See Two knights endgame.)

Queen versus rook

A queen wins against a lone rook, unless there is an immediate draw by
a b c d e f g h
stalemate or due to perpetual check (Nunn 2002a:49) (or if the rook or king
8 8
can immediately capture the queen). Normally the winning process involves
the queen first winning the rook by a fork and then checkmating with the 7 7

king and queen, but forced checkmates with the rook still on the board are 6 6
possible in some positions or against incorrect defense. With perfect play, in
5 5
the worst winning position, the queen can win the rook or checkmate within
4 4
31 moves (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:400).
3 3
The "third rank defense" by the rook is difficult for a human to crack. The
2 2
"third rank defense" is when the rook is on the third rank or file from the
1 1
edge of the board, his king is closer to the edge and the enemy king is on the
a b c d e f g h
other side (see the diagram). For example, the winning move in the position
shown is the counterintuitive withdrawal of the queen from the seventh rank Black is employing the third rank
defense. White can win this position in as
to a more central location, 1. Qf4, so the queen can make checking
few as 19 moves with correct play.
maneuvers to win the rook with a fork if it moves along the third rank. If the
black king emerges from the back rank, 1... Kd7, then 2. Qa4+ Kc7; 3.
Qa7+ forces Black into a second-rank defense (defending king on an edge of the board and the rook on the adjacent rank or file)
after 3... Rb7. This position is a standard win, with White heading for the Philidor position with a queen versus rook (Müller &
Lamprecht 2001:331–33). In 1895 Edward Freeborough edited an entire 130-page book of analysis of this endgame, The Chess
Ending, King & Queen against King & Rook. A possible continuation: 4. Qc5+ Kb8 5. Kd6 Rg7 6. Qe5 Rc7 7. Qf4 Kc8 8. Qf5+
Kb8 9. Qe5 Rb7 10. Kc6+ Ka8 11. Qd5 Kb8 12. Qa5 [Philidor—mate in 7].

Example from game

In this 2001 game[1] between Boris Gelfand and Peter Svidler,[2] The player with the queen should win, but the game drew on
account of the fifty-move rule after he was unable to find the winning maneuvers to fork and capture the rook.
The same position but with colors reversed occurred in a 2006 game
Gelfand vs. Svidler, 2001
between Alexander Morozevich and Dmitry Jakovenko – it was also drawn
a b c d e f g h
(Makarov 2007:170).[3] At the end of that game the rook became a
8 8
desperado and the game ended in stalemate after the rook was captured
(otherwise the game would have eventually been a draw because of 7 7

perpetual check, i.e. threefold repetition). 6 6

5 5

Browne versus BELLE 4 4

3 3
Browne vs. BELLE, game 1
a b c d e f g h 2 2

8 8 1 1
7 7 a b c d e f g h
6 6 Black can win this position in as few as
5 5 13 moves with optimal play from both
4 4
sides.

3 3
2 2 Queen versus rook was one of the
Browne vs. BELLE, game 2
1 1 first endgames completely solved
a b c d e f g h
a b c d e f g h by computers constructing an
8 8
White can win but it ended in a endgame tablebase. A challenge
7 7
draw was issued to Grandmaster Walter
6 6
Browne in 1978 where Browne
5 5
would have the queen in a difficult
4 4
position, defended by BELLE using
3 3
the queen versus rook tablebase.
2 2 Browne could have won the rook or
1 1 checkmated in 31 moves with
a b c d e f g h perfect play. After 45 moves,
White won Browne realized that he would not
be able to win within 50 moves,
according to the fifty-move rule.[4]
Browne studied the position, and later in the month played another match, from a different starting position. This time he won by
capturing the rook on the 50th move (Nunn 2002a:49).[5]

Queen versus two minor pieces

Defensive fortresses exist for any
of the two minor pieces versus the
queen. However, except in the
case of two knights, the fortress
usually cannot be reached against
optimal play. (See fortress for
more details about these endings.)
 Queen versus bishop and
knight: A queen normally Ponziani 1782 Pachman vs. Guimard, 1955[6]
wins against a bishop and a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h
knight, but there is one
8 8 8 8
drawing fortress position
forming a barrier against 7 7 7 7
the enemy king's approach
6 6 6 6
(Müller & Lamprecht
2001:339–41). Another 5 5 5 5
position given by Ponziani 4 4 4 4
in 1782 is more artificial:
the queen's king is 3 3 3 3
confined in a corner by the 2 2 2 2
bishop and knight which
are protected by their king 1 1 1 1
(Hooper & Whyld a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h
1992:46).
Artificial position where the Position after 68.Nd4, Black wins
Queen versus two bishops:
attacking king is confined, draw
A queen has a theoretical
forced win against two
bishops in most positions,
but the win may require up to seventy-one moves (a draw can be claimed after fifty moves under the rules of
competition, see fifty-move rule); there is one drawing fortress position for the two bishops (Müller & Lamprecht
2001:339–41).
Queen versus two knights: Two knights can generally draw against a queen if the king is near its knights and they
are in a reasonable position by setting up a fortress. (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:339–41).

Common pawnless endings (rook and minor pieces)

John Nunn lists these types of pawnless endgames as being common: (1) a rook versus a minor piece and (2) a rook and a minor
piece versus a rook (Nunn 2007:156–65).

Rook versus a bishop: this is usually a draw. The main exception is when the defending king is trapped in a
corner that is of the same color square as his bishop (Nunn 2002a:31) (see Wrong bishop#Rook versus bishop).
If the defending king is trapped in a corner that is the opposite color as his bishop, he draws (see Fortress
(chess)#Fortress in a corner). See the game of Veselin Topalov versus Judit Polgar, where Topalov defended
and drew the game to clinch a win of their 2008 Dos Hermanas match.[7]
Rook versus a knight: this is usually a draw. There are two main exceptions: the knight is separated from the king
and may be trapped and won or the king and knight are poorly placed (Nunn 2002a:9).[8] Kamsky vs Bacrot,
2006 is an example of a rook vs knight ending which resulted in a win. In this game, Black underpromoted a
pawn to a knight to avoid a checkmate and eventually lost the game after allowing his knight to be separated
from the king.[9]
Rook and a bishop versus a rook: this is one of the most common pawnless endgames and is usually a
theoretical draw. However, the rook and bishop have good winning chances in practice because the defence is
difficult. There are some winning positions such as the Philidor position, which occurs relatively often. There are
two main defensive methods: the Cochrane Defense and the "second rank defense" (Nunn 2007:161–65).
Forced wins require up to 59 moves. As a result, FIDE extended the fifty-move rule to 100 moves and then to 75
moves for this endgame, before returning to fifty moves (Speelman, Tisdall & Wade 1993:382). See rook and
bishop versus rook endgame for more information.
Rook and a knight versus a rook: This is usually a simple draw with few winning positions. The winning positions
require the defending king to be badly placed near a corner; this can not be forced in general (Nunn 2007:159–
61). The Cochrane Defense can be used.[10]
 La Bourdonnais vs. McDonnell,
1834
a b c d e f g h
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
a b c d e f g h
Position after 92...Ka5, draw
Topalov vs. J. Polgar, 2008[11]
a b c d e f g h
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
a b c d e f g h
White to move, draw

Philidor, 1749
a b c d e f g h
8 8

7 7

6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1
a b c d e f g h
White to move wins, Black to move draws
(Nunn 2002a:178)
 Timman vs. Lutz, 1995[12] J. Polgar vs. Kasparov, 1996[13]
a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h
8 8 8 8

7 7 7 7

6 6 6 6

5 5 5 5

4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1
a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h
Black to move, drawn 52 moves later Position before White's 70th move, a
(Lutz 1999:129–31) draw with correct play. Polgar blundered
on move 79 and resigned after move 90.

Alekhine vs. Capablanca, 1927[14] Karpov vs. Ftáčnik, 1988[15]

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h
8 8 8 8

7 7 7 7

6 6 6 6

5 5 5 5

4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1
a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h
White to move, the game was drawn Black to move. This combination is
twelve moves later. The white king usually a draw but here White wins
cannot be driven to the edge. because the black king and knight are far
apart (Müller & Pajeken 2008:237),
(Károlyi & Aplin 2007:320–22), (Nunn
2007:158–59).

Miscellaneous pawnless endings

Other types of pawnless endings have been studied (Nunn 2002a). Of course, there are positions that are exceptions to these
general rules stated below.

The fifty-move rule is not taken into account, and it would often be applicable in practice. When one side has two bishops, they
are assumed to be on opposite colored squares, unless otherwise stated. When each side has one bishop, the result often depends
on whether or not the bishops are on the same color, so their colors will always be stated.
Queens only
Queen versus queen: usually a draw, but the side to move first Comte vs. Le Roy, France, 1997
wins in 41.75% of the positions (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:400).
a b c d e f g h
There are some wins when one queen is in the corner, e.g. as a
result of promoting a rook pawn or bishop pawn (Hooper 8 8
1970:17–19).
7 7
Two queens versus one queen: Almost always a win. A cross-
check may be necessary, see cross-check#Two queens versus 6 6
one for an example (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:400). A draw is
possible in a few exceptional positions if the weaker side has an 5 5
immediate perpetual check, e.g. with a white king on a1 and
white queens on a2 and b1, the black king on e8, and the black 4 4
queen giving check on d4. Black has as an unlimited supply of 3 3
checks on d4, a4, and d1, and the white king cannot escape the
corner. 2 2
Two queens versus two queens: The first to move wins in 83% of
1 1
the positions (see the Comte vs. Le Roy diagram for an
example). Wins require up to 44 moves (Nunn 2002a:329,379), a b c d e f g h
(Stiller 1996:175).[16] Whomever moves first wins (Nunn)

Major pieces only

Queen versus two rooks: this is usually a draw, but either side Centurini 1885
may have a win (Nunn 2002a:311). (Fine & Benko diagram 1096)
Queen versus three rooks: this is nearly always a win for the
a b c d e f g h
rooks. This is rare in serious play, and occurs when promoting to
a queen would give stalemate, but three rooks versus a queen is 8 8
usually a straightforward win, especially when the defending king
must be quite well confined for stalemate to be an issue for QRR 7 7
v Q.[17] 6 6
Queen and a rook versus a queen and a rook: Despite the
equality of material, the player to move first wins in 83% of the 5 5
positions (Stiller 1996:175).[18]
4 4
Queen and rook versus a queen: this is a win (Nunn 2002a:317).
Two rooks versus a rook: this is usually a win because the 3 3
attacking king can usually escape checks by the opposing rook 2 2
(which is hard to judge in advance) (Nunn 2002a:320).
Rook versus rook: this is normally a draw, but a win is possible in 1 1
some positions where one of the kings is in the corner or on the a b c d e f g h
edge of the board and threatened with checkmate (Levenfish &
Smyslov 1971:13). Black to move draws. Black would win
with the king on h7 instead.

Queens and rooks with minor pieces

Queen versus a rook and a minor piece: this is usually a draw (Müller
& Lamprecht 2001:402). The queen has good winning chances if the
king and rook are near one edge and the minor piece is near the
opposite edge. In the case of the knight, the queen can trap it on the
edge; then the king assists in winning it. Against the bishop, the
queen makes moves eventually forcing the bishop onto a square
where it can be won (Mednis 1996:120–29).
Two rooks and a minor piece versus a queen: this is usually a win for
the three pieces, but it can take more than fifty moves (Müller &
Lamprecht 2001:406).
 Queen and a minor piece versus a rook and minor piece: this is
normally a win for the queen (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:403–4). a b c d e f g h
Rook and two minor pieces versus a queen: draw (Müller & 8 8
Lamprecht 2001:405). 7 7
Queen and a minor piece versus two rooks: this is usually a draw for
6 6
a knight and a win for a bishop, although the win takes up to eighty-
five moves. The best method of defense is to double the rooks on the 5 5
third rank with the opposing king on the other side and keep the king
4 4
behind the rooks. This case with a bishop and queen versus rooks is
unusual in that such a small material advantage forces a win. It was 3 3
thought to be a draw by human analysis, but computer analysis
2 2
revealed a long forced win (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:404), (Nunn
2002a:328–29,367,372). 1 1
a b c d e f g h
White's knight is trapped by the
Black queen, but the White rook
cannot be driven from its defense.
This position is a draw.

Queen and a minor piece versus a rook and two minor pieces: In a typical stable position, queen and knight win
against rook, bishop, and knight, but mating requires up to 545 moves.[19] Other piece combinations are a draw,
except that a queen and a minor piece win against a rook and a same colored bishop pair. The KQN v KRBN win
is surprising since the difference in material is only one point (other pawnless combinations up to seven pieces
require greater difference to win), and a queen and a minor piece draw against a queen. However, compared to
KQ, KRBN is vulnerable to fork and capture by the opposing queen, and KRBN is slowly outmaneuvered by
KQN, until KQN wins a piece or a rook–knight exchange. Also, while in most open endgames, a knight is weaker
than a bishop, a queen and a knight make a strong attacking combination. Also, two knights make a strong
defense if the superior side does not have an extra piece that can be exchanged for the two knights, and we
have KQ v KNN draw (and thus KQN v KRNN draw) despite KRB v KNN win.

Queens and minor pieces

Queen versus one minor piece: a win for the queen (Hooper Kling & Horowitz, 1851
1970:4).
a b c d e f g h
Queen versus three minor pieces: draw except for a queen
versus three bishops all on the same color, which in many 8 8
positions is a win for the queen (Nunn 2002a:328).
7 7
Four minor pieces versus a queen: a win for the pieces if they
are the usual four minor pieces (see the position from Kling and 6 6
Horowitz) (Fine & Benko 2003:583), (Horwitz & Kling 1986:207).
Alexey Troitsky showed that four knights win against a queen 5 5
(Roycroft 1972:209). 4 4
Queen and a minor piece versus a queen: this is usually a draw
unless the stronger side can quickly win (see Nyazova vs. Levant 3 3
and Spassky vs. Karpov) (Speelman 1981:108). With a knight,
2 2
however, the stronger side has good winning chances in practice
because the knight can create non-linear threats to fork the 1 1
opponent's pieces and very accurate play is required from the
defender to hold the position. There are 38 positions of a b c d e f g h
reciprocal zugzwang and the longest win takes 35 moves until Black is unable to prevent checkmate
the knight forks the queen and king (Nunn 2002a:70–122).

Examples from games

An endgame with queen and knight versus queen is usually drawn, but there are some exceptions where one side can quickly win
material. In the game between Nyazova and Levant, White won:
 1. Qe6+ Kh4
Nyazova vs. Levant, USSR 1976
If 1...Kxh5? then 2.Qg6+ Kh4 3.Qh6+ skewers the black queen. a b c d e f g h
8 8
2. Qf6+ Kh3
7 7
3. Qc3+ Kg2
4. Qd2+ Kg1 6 6
5. Qe3+ Kg2 5 5
6. Nf4+ 1–0
4 4
If 6...Kf1 then 7.Qe2+ Kg1 8.Qe1+ Kh2 9.Qf2+ Qg2 10.Qxg2#.
3 3

White could have won more quickly by 1.Qg8+ Kh4 2.Qg3+ Kxh5 3.Qg6+ 2 2
Kh4 4.Qh6+ and White skewers the black queen (Speelman 1981:108). 1 1
a b c d e f g h
White to move wins with 1.Qg8+ or
1.Qe6+

Spassky vs. Karpov, 1982

a b c d e f g h
The second position is from a 1982 game between former world champion
Boris Spassky and then world champion Anatoly Karpov.[20] The position is
8 8
a theoretical draw but Karpov later blundered in time trouble and resigned
7 7
on move 84.
6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1
a b c d e f g h
Position after 68.Nxb3, a theoretical draw

Example from a study

In this 1967 study by Vitaly Halberstadt, White wins. The solution is:

1. Be5+ Ka8
2. Qb5!

Not 2.Qxf7?? stalemate.

2... Qa7+! 3. Ke2! Qb6! 4. Qd5+ Qb7 5. Qa5+ Qa7 6. Qb4! Qa6+ 7. Kd2! Qc8 8. Qa5+
Kb7 9. Qb5+ Ka8 10. Bd6! Qb7 11. Qe8+ Ka7 12. Bc5+ Ka6 13. Qa4# (Nunn
2002b:48,232).
 V. Halberstadt, 1967
a b c d e f g h
8 8

7 7

6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1
a b c d e f g h
White to move and win

Rooks and minor pieces

Two rooks versus two minor pieces: this is normally a win for the Horwitz & Kling, 1851
rooks (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:405). Henri Rinck discovered
a b c d e f g h
more than 100 positions that are exceptions (Roycroft 1972:203).
Two bishops and a knight versus a rook: this is usually a win for 8 8
the three pieces but it takes up to sixty-eight moves (Müller &
7 7
Lamprecht 2001:404). Howard Staunton analyzed a position of
this type in 1847, and correctly concluded that the normal result 6 6
of this ending is a win for the three minor pieces (Staunton
1848:439–40). 5 5

A bishop and two knights versus a rook: this is usually a draw, 4 4

but there are some wins for the three pieces requiring up to forty-
3 3
nine moves (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:403). Staunton in 1847
correctly concluded that the normal result of this endgame is a 2 2
draw (Staunton 1848:439). Bernhard Horwitz and Josef Kling
gave the same appraisal in 1851 (Horwitz & Kling 1986:142). 1 1
During adjournment of the Karpov versus Kasparov game, a b c d e f g h
Kasparov (initially unsure if it is a draw) analyzed that a
successful defense is having the king near a corner that the White to move wins
bishop does not control, keeping the rook far away to prevent
forks, and threatening to sacrifice it (for stalemate or for the
bishop, which results in a draw, see two knights endgame). Tablebases show that it is usually a draw, no matter
which corner the defending king is in (Kasparov 2010:303). (See the position from the Karpov versus Kasparov
game for a drawn position, and see fifty-move rule for more discussion of this game.) Curiously, Grandmaster
James Plaskett also had an adjournment of a London league game at the same time, versus David Okike; the
last week of October 1991. After resumption it quickly resolved itself into the same pawnless ending. That game,
too, was drawn.
Rook and a bishop versus two knights: this is usually a win for the rook and bishop but it takes up to 223 moves
(Müller & Lamprecht 2001:404). The result of this endgame was unknown until computer analysis proved the
forced win.
Rook and a knight versus two knights: this is usually a draw but there are some wins (for the rook and knight)
that take up to 243 moves (Nunn 2002a:330).
Rook and a knight versus a bishop and knight: this is normally a draw.
Rook and a bishop versus a bishop and knight: this is usually a draw if the bishops are on the same color. It is
usually a win (for the rook and bishop) if the bishops are on opposite colors, but takes up to ninety-eight moves
(Müller & Lamprecht 2001:404). Magnus Carlsen successfully converted this configuration with opposite-coloured
bishops within the 50-move limit against Francisco Vallejo Pons in 2019. Even with best play from the starting RB
v BN position, the stronger side would have won a piece well within 50 moves.[22]
 Rook and a bishop versus two bishops: this is usually a draw, but
there are some long wins if the defending bishops are on the Karpov vs. Kasparov, Tilburg,
same color (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:404). 1991[21]
Rook versus two minor pieces: this is normally a draw (Hooper a b c d e f g h
1970:4).
8 8
Two rooks versus three minor pieces: this is normally a draw
(Hooper 1970:4). 7 7
Rook and two minor pieces versus a rook: a win for the three
pieces (Hooper 1970:4). With two knights, White must not 6 6
exchange rooks and avoid losing a knight, but the three pieces
5 5
have great checkmating power (Roycroft 1972:195,203).
Rook and two minor pieces versus rook and one minor piece: 4 4
see § Examples with an extra minor piece below.
3 3
Two rooks and a minor piece versus two rooks: this is normally a
draw, but some very long wins exist.[23] 2 2

1 1
a b c d e f g h
Position after 63. Kxh4. The game was
drawn on move 115.

Minor pieces only

Two minor pieces versus Kling & Horowitz, 1851 ECE #1907, Belle
one minor piece:
a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h
Two bishops versus a 8 8 8 8
knight: this is a win
7 7 7 7
(except for a few trivial
positions where Black 6 6 6 6
can immediately force
5 5 5 5
a draw), but it can take
up to 66 moves. (Nunn 4 4 4 4
1995:267). See Effect
3 3 3 3
of tablebases on
endgame theory, 2 2 2 2
Fortress (chess)#A 1 1 1 1
semi-fortress and see
the example from the a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h
Botvinnik versus Tal 1.Ba4+ wins (the only winning
game below. move). White wins the knight on
Other cases: this is move 66, converting the position to
normally a draw in all
a basic checkmate (Matanović
other cases (Müller &
Lamprecht 2001:402), 1993:512–13).
(Hooper 1970:4).
Edmar Mednis
considered the difficulty of defending these positions:

Two bishops versus one bishop: The easiest for the defender to draw, unless the king is caught in a
corner.
Two knights versus one bishop: any normal position is an easy draw.
Two knights versus one knight: an easy draw if the king is not trapped on the edge. However, if the king is
trapped on the edge, there may be a win similar to the two knights versus a pawn endgame.
Bishop and knight versus a bishop on the same color: may be lost if the king is on the edge; otherwise an
easy draw.
Bishop and knight versus a bishop on the opposite color: normally a draw but the defense may be difficult
if the defending king is confined near a corner that the attacking bishop controls.
 Bishop and knight versus a knight: best winning chances (other than two bishops versus knight). The
difficulty of defense is not clear and the knight can be lost if it is separated from its king (Mednis 1996:36–
40).
Three knights and a king can force checkmate against a lone king within 20 moves (unless the defending king
can win one of the knights), but this can only happen if the attacking side has underpromoted a pawn to a knight.
(Fine 1941:5–6).
Three minor pieces versus one minor piece: a win except in some unusual situations involving an
underpromotion to a bishop on the same color as a player's existing bishop. More than fifty moves may be
required to win (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:403,406). Three knights win against one knight (Dvoretsky 2011:283).
Three minor pieces versus two minor pieces: if neither player has a pair of same-colored bishops, this is a
draw except in the cases of two bishops and a knight versus two knights, and two bishops and a knight versus
bishop and knight, which are wins. (In other words, if there are no same-colored bishop pairs, this is a won
endgame exactly when the stronger side has the bishop pair and the weaker side lacks it.) There are also wins in
some unusual situations where underpromotion has resulted in one player having two bishops travelling on the
same colors.[24]
Two minor pieces:

Two bishops is a basic checkmate

A bishop and knight is a basic checkmate, see bishop and knight checkmate
Two knights cannot force checkmate, see two knights endgame
Trivial cases: These are all trivial draws in general: bishop only, knight only, bishop versus knight, bishop versus
bishop, knight versus knight.

Example from game

An ending with two bishops versus a knight occurred in the seventeenth Botvinnik vs. Tal, 1961[25]
game of the 1961 World Chess Championship match between Mikhail
a b c d e f g h
Botvinnik and Mikhail Tal. The position occurred after White captured a
8 8
pawn on a6 on his 77th move, and White resigned on move 84.[26]
7 7
77... Bf1+ 6 6
78. Kb6 Kd6
5 5
79. Na5
4 4
White to move may draw in this position: 1.Nb7+ Kd5 2.Kc7 Bd2 3.Kb6
3 3
Bf4 4.Nd8 Be3+ 5.Kc7 (Hooper 1970:5). White gets his knight to b7 with
2 2
his king next to it to form a long-term fortress.[27]
1 1
79... Bc5+ a b c d e f g h
80. Kb7 Be2
Position after 77.Kxa6, Black wins
81. Nb3 Be3
82. Na5 Kc5
83. Kc7 Bf4+ 0–1

The game might continue 84.Kd7 Kb6 85.Nb3 Be3, followed by ...Bd1 and ...Bd4 (Speelman 1981:109–10), for example 86.Kd6
Bd1 87.Na1 Bd4 88.Kd5 Bxa1 (Hooper 1970:5).

Examples with an extra minor piece

An extra minor piece on one side with a queen versus queen endgame or rook versus rook endgame is normally a theoretical
draw. An endgame with two minor pieces versus one is also drawn, except in the case of two bishops versus a knight. But a rook
and two minor pieces versus a rook and one minor piece is different. In these two examples from games, the extra minor piece is
enough to win.
In this position, if the bishops were on the same color, White might have a
R. Blau vs. Unzicker, 1949
chance to exchange bishops and reach an easily drawn position.
a b c d e f g h
(Exchanging rooks would also result in a draw.) Black wins:
8 8

1... Re3 7 7
2. Bd4 Re2+
6 6
3. Kc1 Nb4
4. Bg7 Rc2+ 5 5
5. Kd1 Be2+
4 4
6. resigns, because 6. Ke1 Nd3 is checkmate
(Speelman 1981:108–9). 3 3

2 2

1 1
a b c d e f g h
Black to move, wins

In this position, if White could exchange bishops (or rooks) he would reach Vladimorov vs. Palatnik, 1977
a drawn position. However, Black has a winning attack: a b c d e f g h
8 8
1... Rb3+
2. Kh2 Bc6 7 7
3. Rb8 Rc3
6 6
4. Rb2 Kf5
5. Bg3 Be4 5 5
6. Re2 Bg5 4 4
7. Rb2 Kg4
8. Rf2 Rc1 3 3
9. resigns, (Speelman 1981:109). 2 2

Speelman gave these conclusions: 1 1

a b c d e f g h
Rook and two bishops versus rook and bishop – thought to be a Black to move, wins
win
Rook, bishop, and knight versus rook and bishop – good winning
chances, probably a win if the bishops are on opposite colors
Rook, bishop, and knight versus rook and knight – thought to be a win (Speelman 1981:170).

Summary
Grandmaster Ian Rogers summarized several of these endgames (Rogers 2010:37–39).
 Recap of some pawnless endgames
Attacker Defender Status Assessment

Win Difficult[28]

Draw Easy, if defender goes to the correct corner

Draw Easy

Draw Easy, if the Cochrane Defense is used[29]

Draw Easy

Draw Easy, but use care[30]

Win Easy

Draw Easy for the defender

Draw Difficult for the defender

Draw Easy

Fine's rule
In his landmark 1941 book Basic Chess Endings, Reuben Fine inaccurately stated, "Without pawns one must be at least a Rook
ahead in order to be able to mate. The only exceptions to this that hold in all cases are that the double exchange wins and that a
Queen cannot successfully defend against four minor pieces." (Fine 1941:572) Kenneth Harkness also stated this "rule" (Harkness
1967:49). Fine also stated "There is a basic rule that in endings without pawns one must be at least a rook ahead to be able to win
in general." (Fine 1941:553) This inaccurate statement was repeated in the 2003 edition revised by Grandmaster Pal Benko (Fine
& Benko 2003:585). However, Fine recognized elsewhere in his book that a queen wins against a rook (Fine 1941:561) and that a
queen normally beats a knight and a bishop (with the exception of one drawing fortress) (Fine 1941:570–71). The advantage of a
rook corresponds to a five-point material advantage using the traditional relative value of the pieces (pawn=1, knight=3,
bishop=3, rook=5, queen=9). It turns out that there are several more exceptions, but they are endgames that rarely occur in actual
games. Fine's statement has been superseded by computer analysis (Howell 1997:136).

A four-point material advantage is often enough to win in some endings without pawns. For example, a queen wins versus a rook
(as mentioned above, but 31 moves may be required); as well as when there is matching additional material on both sides, i.e.: a
queen and any minor piece versus a rook and any minor piece; a queen and a rook versus two rooks; and two queens versus a
queen and a rook. Another type of win with a four-point material advantage is the double exchange – two rooks versus any two
minor pieces. There are some other endgames with four-point material differences that are generally long theoretical wins. In
practice, the fifty-move rule comes into play because more than fifty moves are often required to either checkmate or reduce the
endgame to a simpler case: two bishops and a knight versus a rook (requires up to 68 moves); and two rooks and a minor piece
versus a queen (requires up to 82 moves for the bishop, 101 moves for the knight).

A three-point material advantage can also result in a forced win, in some cases. For instance, some of the cases of a queen versus
two minor piece are such positions (as mentioned above). In addition, the four minor pieces win against a queen. Two bishops
win against a knight, but it takes up to 66 moves if a bishop is initially trapped in a corner (Nunn 1995:265ff).
There are some long general theoretical wins with only a two- or three-point material advantage but the fifty-move rule usually
comes into play because of the number of moves required: two bishops versus a knight (66 moves); a queen and bishop versus
two rooks (two-point material advantage, can require 84 moves); a rook and bishop versus a bishop on the opposite color and a
knight (a two-point material advantage, requires up to 98 moves); and a rook and bishop versus two knights (two-point material
advantage, but it requires up to 222 moves) (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:400–6) (Nunn 2002a:325–29).

Finally, there are some other unusual exceptions to Fine's rule involving underpromotions. Some of these are (1) a queen wins
against three bishops of the same color (no difference in material points), up to 51 moves are required; (2) a rook and knight win
against two bishops on the same color (two point difference), up to 140 moves are needed; and (3) three bishops (two on the same
color) win against a rook (four point difference), requiring up to 69 moves, and (4) four knights win against a queen (85 moves).
This was proved by computer in 2005 and was the first ending with seven pieces that was completely solved. (See endgame
tablebase.)

General remarks on these endings

Many of these endings are listed as a win in a certain number of moves. That assumes perfect play by both sides, which is rarely
achieved if the number of moves is large. Also, finding the right moves may be exceedingly difficult for one or both sides. When
a forced win is more than fifty moves long, some positions can be won within the fifty move limit (for a draw claim) and others
cannot. Also, generally all of the combinations of pieces that are usually a theoretical draw have some non-trivial positions that
are a win for one side. Similarly, combinations that are generally a win for one side often have non-trivial positions which result
in draws.

Tables
This a table listing several pawnless endings, the number of moves in the longest win, and the winning percentage for the first
player. The winning percentage can be misleading – it is the percentage of wins out of all possible positions, even if a piece can
immediately be captured or won by a skewer, pin, or fork. The largest number of moves to a win is the number of moves until
either checkmate or transformation to a simpler position due to winning a piece. Also, the fifty-move rule is not taken into
account (Speelman, Tisdall & Wade 1993:7–8).
 Common pawnless endgames
Attacking pieces Defending pieces Longest win Winning %

— 10 100

— 16 100

10 42

31 99

18 35

27 48

— 19 99.97

— 33 99.5

30 94

67 92.1

33 53.4

41 48.4

71 92.1

42 93.1

63 89.7

59 40.1

33 35.9

66 91.8

This table shows six-piece endgames (Stiller 1996).

 Six-piece endgames
Attacking pieces Defending pieces Longest win Winning %

243[31] 78

223 96

190 72

153 86

140 77

101 94

99 69

98 87

92 86

92 83

86 94

85 92

82 96

75 72

73 87

73 81

72 94

71 90

69 80

68 95

65 98

63 85

54 73
 52 65

51 82

49 53

48 92

46 66

44 83

44 75

38 63

37 94

36 68

35 75

32 62

32 61

31 99

29 63

27 57

18 67

12 62

This table shows seven-piece endgames (Lomonosov tablebases).

Many of the combinations listed involve single piece capture and transposition into six-piece territory almost
immediately from the starting position.
 Seven-piece endgames
Attacking Defending Longest win (distance to
Winning %
pieces pieces mate)

62.79 (85.6 with White to move, 39.98 with

545
Black to move)

304 ?

262 ?

262 ?

246 ?

246 ?

238 ?

232 ?

229 ?

212 ?

210 ?

197 ?

195 ?

192 ?

182 ?

176 ?

176 ?
169 ?

154 ?

152 ?

150 ?

149 ?

140 ?

136 ?

134 ?

122 ?

120 ?

117 ?

115 ?

112 ?

106 ?

105 ?
 102 ?

98 ?

88 ?

86 ?

77 ?

70 ?

See also
Checkmate
Chess piece relative value

Notes
1. Gelfand vs. Svidler (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1210725)
2. ChessBase and ChessGames.com give Gelfand as White but Makarov gives Svidler as White. Makarov also
makes a White/Black error in discussing the game.
3. Morozevich vs. Jakovenko (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1442203)
4. Browne vs BELLE, game 1 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1480950)
5. Browne vs BELLE, game 2 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1480951)
6. Pachman vs. Guimard (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1104804)
7. Topalov vs. Polgar (http://chess.maribelajar.com/chesspublisher/viewgame.php?id=1208631002)
8. This ending was the subject of the oldest documented endgame study, by al-Aldi in the 9th century AD. Studies
from this period involving other pieces are no longer valid because the rules have changed. Hawkins, Jonathan,
Amateur to IM, 2012, p. 179, ISBN 978-1-936277-40-7
9. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1411263
10. Incidentally, the longest decisive game (210 moves) between masters under standard time controls ended with
this material, see Neverov vs. Bogdanovich (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1721829). Andy
Soltis, "Chess to Enjoy", Chess Life, p. 12, Dec. 2013, and chessbase article: "210-move drama in Kiev" (http://e
n.chessbase.com/post/210-move-drama-in-kiev-270613).
11. Topalov vs. J. Polgar, 2008 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1489805)
12. Timman vs. Lutz, 1995 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1143375)
13. J. Polgar vs. Kasparov, 1996 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070866)
14. Alekhine vs. Capablanca, 1927 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1012508)
15. Karpov vs. Ftáčnik 1988 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1046015)
16. "In a battle where both sides have two queens and nothing else, the player who begins with check can win
because the queens are of overpowering strength against a naked king." (Benko 2007:70)
17. Such an underpromotion occurred in Dinara Dordzhieva vs Alexandra Kosteniuk, Russian Team Championship
(Women) R6, (7 May 2018), Sochi.[1] (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1920106) This was not
strictly a pawnless endgame, because there were two blocked pawns on the a-file, but they did not change the
principle involved.
18. "The rule of thumb which governs endgames such as queen and rook versus queen and rook or two queens
versus two queens is 'Whoever checks first wins'. In many cases it is a valid principle and certainly if the
attacking force is well-coordinated, it can usually force mate or win material by a series of checks. However, there
are many cases in which the win is not so easy... The sequence of checks must be quite precise..." (Nunn
2002a:379). In a rook and pawn ending, if both sides queen a pawn, the side that gives check first frequently
wins. (Müller & Pajeken 2008:223)
19. However, most positions in this endgame have immediate threats, and in a large fraction of random positions,
KRBN can draw by trapping/capturing/exchanging the opposing knight, or using this and other threats to force
move repetition; there is also a drawing fortress position (with Na2 Bc3 Rd4).
20. Spassky vs. Karpov, 1982 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1068273)
21. Karpov vs. Kasparov, 1991 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1067317)
22. Francisco Vallejo Pons vs Magnus Carlsen (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1954368),
GRENKE Chess Classic, Karlsruhe GER, rd 2, 21 April 2019.
23. Open chess diary (https://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/diary_15.htm) by Tim Krabbé, entry 298
24. http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=25373 (post by Marc Bourzutschky, specialist in
endgame tablebases)
25. Botvinnik vs. Tal, 1961 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1032550)
26. Botvinnik vs. Tal, 1961 World Championship Game 17 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=10325
50) game score at chessgames.com
27. At the time, it was known that this fortress could be broken down after many moves, but it was thought that the
defender could then probably form the fortress again in another corner. Computer analysis done later showed
that the attacker can prevent the defender from re-forming the fortress, but the fifty-move rule may be applicable
in this case.
28. Rogers says that this endgame has an undeserved reputation for being difficult, but that it is hard to go wrong
with the queen. Nunn notes that it is difficult for a human to play either side perfectly. Capablanca says this is a
very difficult position to win with queen; when the defense is skillful only a very good player can win. Pandolfini
says that it is not easy (Pandolfini 2009:67).
29. Nunn says that this endgame is tricky to defend and there are many marginal positions that require very precise
defense to draw.
30. Nunn points out that there is only one drawing fortress, but the win for the queen is long and difficult (it often
requires more than fifty moves).
31. Stiller and Nunn both say 243, but Müller & Lamprecht say 242

References
Benko, Pal (2007), Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory, Ishi Press, ISBN 0-923891-88-9
Dvoretsky, Mark (2011), Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual, Russell Enterprises, ISBN 978-1-936490-13-4
Fine, Reuben (1941), Basic Chess Endings (1st ed.), McKay, ISBN 0-679-14002-6
Fine, Reuben; Benko, Pal (2003) [1941], Basic Chess Endings (2nd ed.), McKay, ISBN 0-8129-3493-8
Grivas, Efstratios (2008), Practical Endgame Play – mastering the basics, Everyman Chess, ISBN 978-1-85744-
556-5
Harkness, Kenneth (1967), Official Chess Handbook, McKay
Hooper, David (1970), A Pocket Guide to Chess Endgames, Bell & Hyman, ISBN 0-7135-1761-1
 Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1992), The Oxford Companion to Chess (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press,
ISBN 0-19-280049-3
Horwitz, Bernhard; Kling, Josef (1986), Chess Studies and End-Games (1851, 1884), Olms, ISBN 3-283-00172-3
Howell, James (1997), Essential Chess Endings: The tournament player's guide, Batsford, ISBN 0-7134-8189-7
Károlyi, Tibor; Aplin, Nick (2007), Endgame Virtuoso Anatoly Karpov, New In Chess, ISBN 978-90-5691-202-4
Kasparov, Garry (2010), Modern Chess: Part 4, Kasparov vs Karpov 1988–2009, Everyman Chess, ISBN 978-1-
85744-652-4
Levenfish, Grigory; Smyslov, Vasily (1971), Rook endings, Batsford, ISBN 0-7134-0449-3
Lutz, Christopher (1999), Endgame Secrets: How to plan in the endgame in chess, Batsford, ISBN 978-0-7134-
8165-5
Makarov, Marat (2007), The Endgame, Chess Stars, ISBN 978-954-8782-63-0
Matanović, Aleksandar (1993), Encyclopedia of Chess Endings (minor pieces), 5, Chess Informant
Mednis, Edmar (1996), Advanced Endgame Strategies, Chess Enterprises, ISBN 0-945470-59-2
Müller, Karsten; Lamprecht, Frank (2001), Fundamental Chess Endings, Gambit Publications, ISBN 1-901983-
53-6
Müller, Karsten; Pajeken, Wolfgang (2008), How to Play Chess Endings, Gambit Publications, ISBN 978-1-
904600-86-2
Nunn, John (1995), Secrets of Minor-Piece Endings, Batsford, ISBN 0-8050-4228-8
Nunn, John (2002a), Secrets of Pawnless Endings (2nd ed.), Gambit Publications, ISBN 1-901983-65-X
Nunn, John (2002b), Endgame Challenge, Gambit Publications, ISBN 978-1-901983-83-8
Nunn, John (2007), Secrets of Practical Chess (2nd ed.), Gambit Publications, ISBN 978-1-904600-70-1
Pandolfini, Bruce (2009), Endgame Workshop: Principles for the Practical Player, Russell Enterprises, ISBN 978-
1-888690-53-8
Rogers, Ian (January 2010), "The Lazy Person's Guide to Endgames", Chess Life, 2010 (1): 37–41
Roycroft, A. J. (1972), Test Tube Chess, Stackpole, ISBN 0-8117-1734-8
Speelman, Jon (1981), Endgame Preparation, Batsford, ISBN 0-7134-4000-7
Speelman, Jon; Tisdall, Jon; Wade, Bob (1993), Batsford Chess Endings, B. T. Batsford, ISBN 0-7134-4420-7
Staunton, Howard (1848), The Chess-Player's Handbook (2nd ed.), Henry C. Bohn
Stiller, Lewis (1996), "On Numbers and Endgames: Combinatorial Game Theory in Chess Endgames", in
Nowakowski, Richard (ed.), Multilinear Algebra and Chess Endgames, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-
57411-0

Further reading
Ward, Chris (1996), Endgame Play, Batsford, ISBN 0-7134-7920-5 Pawnless endings are discussed on pages
87–96.
Pachman, Luděk (1983), Chess Endings for the Practical Player, Routledge & Kegan Paul, ISBN 0-7100-9266-0
Pawnless endings are discussed on pages 9–22.

External links
Book review (http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/icga/journal/contents/content25-2.htm#SECRETS)
Interactive Chess Endgames vs Chess Computer (http://www.chessvideos.tv/endgame-training/endgame-simulat
ions.php)
Sergienko vs. Vescovi Moscow 2010, R+3N vs. R+B+N (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1572
860)
Volkov vs. Minasian Moscow 2009, Q+R+N vs. 2Q (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1535815)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pawnless_chess_endgame&oldid=919903908"

This page was last edited on 6 October 2019, at 15:02 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.