Queen and pawn versus queen endgame

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 they are trying 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 Müller & Lamprecht, diagram 9.12A
always a draw if the defending king is in front of the pawn (Nunn a b c d e f g h
2007:148). 8 8

7 7
Karsten Müller and Frank Lamprecht say that this endgame occurs quite
frequently but Mark Dvoretsky says that it occurs quite seldom (Müller & 6 6

Lamprecht 2001:316), (Dvoretsky 2006:250). This is the second most 5 5

common "piece and pawn versus piece" endgame, next to the rook and pawn
4 4
versus rook endgame (Nunn 2007:148).
3 3

2 2

1 1
Contents a b c d e f g h

History White to play wins; Black to play draws

General considerations
Rook pawn
Knight pawn
Bishop pawn
Central pawn
Examples from games
Botvinnik vs. Minev
Botvinnik vs. Ravinsky
Queen and two pawns versus a queen
Queen and two pawns versus a queen and pawn
See also
References
External links

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 (Averbakh, Henkin & Chekhover 1986:29–30).
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 (Nunn 2007:148). 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" (Nunn 1995:265). 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." (Nunn 2010:299)

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 his king far away from the pawn. The defender should keep
checking until he runs out of check, and then pin the pawn (Fine & Benko 2003:538). 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 (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:316). 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) (Nunn 2007:148–53, 248–49). Wins by the side with the pawn
take up to 59 moves (Speelman, Tisdall & Wade 1993:7). A cross-check may be necessary to win.

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

A bishop pawn is the best pawn to have. It is relatively easy to advance and is a win once it reaches the seventh
rank.
A central pawn wins if it reaches the seventh rank, but it is difficult to get it there. Even if the pawn reaches the
sixth rank, the position is usually a draw.
A knight pawn is relatively easy to get to the seventh rank, but the position may be a theoretical draw.
Positions with rook pawns are theoretical draws, but in practice it may be difficult to draw (Mednis 1987:126–27,
134).
John Nunn gives this summary for the defense:

with a central pawn, the defense has two possibilities: get the king in front of the pawn or get the king to corner
nearest to the pawn's promotion square
with a bishop pawn, the defender's only chance is to get the king in front of the pawn
with a knight pawn, the defender must get the king in front of the pawn or in the corner furthest from the
promotion square
a rook pawn is generally a draw and the defensive guidelines are the same as for a knight pawn.
Naturally, the less advanced the pawn is, the better the defensive chances (Nunn 2010:299).

Rook pawn
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 (Mednis 1996:93). A
rook pawn needs to be on at least the sixth rank to have decent winning chances (Nunn 2007:150).

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

To draw:
 The best area for the king is in the corner opposite the pawn's
promotion square. This keeps it from blocking checks by its Nunn, 2007, p. 150
queen. a b c d e f g h
When the white queen is centralized, the safest place for the 8 8
black king is probably b3.
Once the king is in the far corner it should stay there. 7 7
At certain points the king can be on other squares and still draw, 6 6
but it is much more difficult to play correctly.
The queen should be centralized. 5 5
The queen checks on the central squares for more flexibility on 4 4
future moves.
The queen checks in ways so that the white queen cannot be 3 3
centralized.
2 2
The queen is used to keep the king in front of its pawn.
The queen is used to prevent the white queen from becoming 1 1
active. a b c d e f g h
If the queen is on e5 it will draw against a pawn on h7 and queen Black king on white dots: win with White
on g6 or f7 if the black king is in the far corner.
to move, draw with Black to move; on
The queen is kept active and in a flexible place. It will be more
black dots – win with either to move;
active on c2 than h7.
other squares – draw
The queen on h7 is often good enough to draw.
To win:

The worst place for the king is in front of the pawn.

There are two good places for the king:

to the side of the pawn, e.g. f7, f8, or e8.

close to the black king, which allows for counterchecks.
The pawn is advanced to the seventh rank only if the queen is in place to prevent perpetual check.
If the pawn is on h7, the best square for the queen is e4. In favorable circumstances, other squares (e.g. f5, d7)
will also win (Mednis 1996:115–17).

Knight pawn
A knight pawn should be on at least the fifth rank to have good winning chances. Nunn, 2007, p. 151
A knight pawn on the fifth rank has better winning chances than a rook pawn on a b c d e f g h
the sixth rank. There are two reasons for this: 8 8
7 7
the king has squares on the adjacent rook file to try to avoid perpetual
check 6 6
the exchange of queens is less likely to lead to a drawn king and pawn 5 5
versus king endgame.
4 4
The best place for the defending king is in front of the pawn and the second-best
3 3
place is in the corner opposite its promotion square (Nunn 2007:150–51).
2 2
1 1
a b c d e f g h

Bishop pawn
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 (Nunn 2007:151–52).
 Nunn, 2007, p. 152
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

Central pawn
A central pawn has better chances to win than a rook pawn or knight pawn, but not Nunn, 2007, p. 152
as good as a bishop pawn. As with the bishop pawn, there is no drawing zone for a b c d e f g h
the defending king in the opposite corner. It is better for the defending king to be 8 8
on the "short side" of the pawn rather than the "long side" (Nunn 2007:152–53). 7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
a b c d e f g h

Examples from games

Botvinnik vs. Minev

Mikhail Botvinnik was the first Botvinnik vs. Minev, 1954
person to find the correct winning
method, while analyzing this
adjourned game with Nikolay
Minev in 1954 (Dvoretsky
2006:250–51).[1]

56. Qg4+ Ka5 57. Qxe6 Qh8+

58. Kg6 Qc3 59. g4 Qd2 60. g5
Qd4 61. Qf5+ Ka4 62. Kh5
Qh8+ 63. Kg4 Qh1 (This move
loses for Black in 39 moves as
confirmed by
http://www.k4it.de/index.php?
a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h
topic=egtb&lang=en) 64. Qf4+
8 8 8 8
Ka5 65. Qe5+ Ka4 66. g6 Qd1+
7 7 7 7
67. Kg5 Qg8+ 68. Kf5 Qc8+ 69.
6 6 6 6
Kf4 Qc1+ 70. Qe3 Qc7+ 71.
5 5 5 5
Qe5 Qc1+ 72. Kf5 Qc8+ 73.
4 4 4 4
Kg5 Qd8+ 74. Qf6 Qd5+ 75.
Qf5 Qd8+ 76. Kh5 Qe8 77. 3 3 3 3

Qf4+ Ka5 78. Qd2+ Ka4 79. 2 2 2 2

Qd4+ Ka5 80. Kg5 Qe7+ 81. 1 1 1 1

Kf5 Qf8+ 82. Ke4 Qh6 83. a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

Qe5+ Ka4 84. g7 Qh1+ 85. Kd4 After 55...a1Q After 91.Kc5!!
Qd1+ 86. Kc5 Qc1+ 87. Kd6
Qd2+ 88. Ke6 Qa2+ 89. Qd5
Qe2+ 90. Kd6 Qh2+ 91. Kc5!! 1–0

Now no matter what Black does, a cross-check forces the exchange of queens and the pawn promotes.

Botvinnik vs. Ravinsky

This 1944 game between Botvinnik vs. Ravinsky, 1944
Botvinnik and Grigory Ravinsky
a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h
concluded:[2] 8 8 8 8
7 7 7 7
87. Qa7+ Kf6 88. Qf7+ Ke5 89.
6 6 6 6
Kh6 Qh1+ 90. Kg7 Kd4 91.
Qf6+ Kc5 92. Kg8 Kb5 93. g7 5 5 5 5

Ka4 94. Kf7 Qh5+ 95. Ke7 4 4 4 4

Qc5+ 96. Qd6 Qg5+ 97. Kf8 3 3 3 3

Qf5+ 98. Ke8 Qh5+ 99. Kf8 2 2 2 2

Qf5+ 100. Ke7 Qg5+ 101. Qf6 1 1 1 1
Qc5+ 102. Kd7 Qd5+ 103. Kc7 a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h
Qa5+ 104. Kb7 Qb5+ 105. Qb6 After 86...b1=Q After 126.Qf4+
Qd7+ 106. Qc7 Qb5+ 107. Ka7
Qd5

A barrage of checks by the defending queen usually stops the attacking side from making much progress.

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, would be:

126... Kb3 127. Qf7+ Ka4 128. g8Q Qg4+ 129. Kh6 Qh4+ 130. Kg7 Qg3+ 131. Kf8 Qd6+ 132. Qe7 Qh6+ 133. Qgg7 Qf4+
134. Qgf7 Qb8+ 135. Qee8+!

The cross-check 135.Qee8+ (or 135.Qfe8+) forces 135...Qxe8+ 136.Qxe8+, winning by a basic checkmate. 135...Qb5, blocking
the check, does not change anything after 136.Qxb5+ Kxb5.
 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
After 134...Qb8+

Queen and two pawns versus a queen

This is usually a win for the two
pawns, but victory can
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
Lputian vs. Haroutjunian, 2001
be
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

(Nunn 2010:307). 2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1
There are a number of other a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h
drawing exceptions, most notably This position, after 86.h6, is In this drawn position after White's
with connected rook and knight drawing. (Nunn 2010:303) 141.Qf4 (which intercepts check
pawns (a- & b-pawns, or g- & h- and counterthreatens the Black
pawns) in which the defending queen), Black blundered with ...Qf7,
hoping for 142.Qxf7 stalemate.
king is ahead of the pawns (Nunn
White instead played Qf6+, forcing
2010:303). One such an example
an exchange of queens leading to a
is Smbat Lputian vs. Gevorg winning king and pawn endgame,
Haroutjunian, 2001.[3] The and Black resigned.
position after 86.h6 (the last
pawn move of the game) is a
draw. Played continued until move 142, with inaccuracies on both sides swinging the position from a draw to a forcing 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 (Nunn 2010:303-307).

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 require 594 plies. However, in Kasparov versus the World, 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.
 Lomonosov Tablebases
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 mates in 297.

Kasparov vs. the World

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 54.Qf4.

See also
Chess endgame
Endgame tablebase
Queen versus pawn endgame

References
1. Botvinnik vs. Minev (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1032347)
2. Botvinnik vs. Ravinsky (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1032089)
3. "Smbat Gariginovich Lputian vs Gevorg Harutjunyan (2001)" (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=
1196357). Chessgames.com.

Bibliography

Averbakh, Yuri; Henkin, V; Chekhover, V (1986), Comprehensive Chess Endings, 3 (Queen Endings), Pergamon,
ISBN 0-08-026904-4
Dvoretsky, Mark (2006), Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual (2nd ed.), Russell Enterprises, ISBN 1-888690-28-3
 Mednis, Edmar (1987), Questions and Answers on Practical Endgame Play, Chess Enterprises, ISBN 0-931462-
69-X
Mednis, Edmar (1996), Advanced Endgame Strategies, Chess Enterprises, ISBN 978-0-945470-59-5
Müller, Karsten; Lamprecht, Frank (2001), Fundamental Chess Endings, Gambit Publications, ISBN 1-901983-
53-6
Nunn, John (1995), Secrets of Minor-Piece Endings, Batsford, ISBN 0-8050-4228-8
Nunn, John (2007), Secrets of Practical Chess (2nd ed.), Gambit Publications, ISBN 978-1-904600-70-1
Nunn, John (2010), Nunn's Chess Endings, volume 1, Gambit Publications, ISBN 978-1-906454-21-0
Speelman, Jon; Tisdall, Jon; Wade, Bob (1993), Batsford Chess Endings, B. T. Batsford, ISBN 0-7134-4420-7

External links
The Endgame Tactician: Queen & Pawn vs Queen (https://blog.chess.com/likesforests/the-endgame-tactician-qu
een--pawn-vs-queen) – Chess.com

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

title=Queen_and_pawn_versus_queen_endgame&oldid=898711445"

This page was last edited on 25 May 2019, at 12:34 (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.