Talk:Chess endgame

message: "All rook endings are drawn" - most sources say this quote was from Tarrasch, but Korchnoi says Tartakower instead.  I don't know which is right, but I'm inclined to think that the majority (Tarrasch) is probably right.  Also, though, most sources say "All rook endings are drawn" instead of "All rook AND PAWN endings are drawn", but I didn't make note of that.  Again, I'm inclined to go with the majority and leave out "and pawn".
--Bubba73 03:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "All rook endings are drawn" 

message: The article says "Endings with asymmetric piece possession are less common".  Is this really true? I think I read somewhere that the most common endgame was a rook versus a minor piece, with pawns.  Bubba73 20:37, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
: I removed this sentence since the table doesn't seem to bear that out.  PErhaps a rephrasing of it should be restored.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  asymmetrical positions 

message: I added a table of the most common endgames in actualgames, based on data in Muller & Lamprecht.  However, they have "pawn endings" and then "K+P vs. K".  I don't know whether the second is included in the first.  Also, they have "R vs R" and then "R+P vs. R" and "R+2P vs R", and I don't know if "R vs R" includes the second and third category.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I put in the table based on Muller & Lamprecht, then I added the second table, breaking down the "rook & minor piece" vs "rook & minor piece" category into its components, based on other data in M&L.  A recent edit removed the first table as being redundant.  It is to an extent, but M&L saw fit to remove the first table.  I'm not going to argue about it, but I would like to hear some comments about whether what was the first table should be in there or not.  Thanks.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Please find my own work on endgame frequencies . I don't think it's contradicting to the currently published, but it can't be directly compared (as eg. in Miller's data Rooks + any number of pawns is taken together as one set, while in my sample r+p would be different than r+p+p). Additionally to the endgame frequencies, I have published the frequency of player blunders in such positions (Basically meaning: which endgames are more complex to play). I will refrain from editing this article, as for the sake of transparency I'm working on chess-db.com so there is possible conflict of interest, and in any case I don't want my contributions on Wikipedia to be questioned for their intention.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChessyD (talk • contribs) 18:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is very interesting data.  Yes, there is a difference because your data is limited to five pieces.  And you are right to be concerned about the possible conflict of interest.  You should not added to the article, but I'm not sure what to do with it.  I'd been telling people about the importance of R+P vs. R and K+P vs. K - this bears it out.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of most common endings 

message: I added the number of moves for the NNNN vs. Q win (85).
For the 290 move win, I removed the references to the mate in a further 6 moves, since the 6 moves is really the shorted distance to mate or capture.  Indeed, the distance to mate from the position after the rook capture on move 290 would be 8.  However, that does not mean that the starting position for the 290 move win is a mate in 298.  Some confusion has been caused in some circles by the inappropriate mixing of distance to win and distance to mate concepts.  -Marc Bourzutschky, 12/18/2005.
: Yes, thanks, I believe you're right.  It is easy (for me at least) to get confused between shortest path to mate and shortest path to conversion.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest Wins 

message: The diagrams in the "endings with pawns" need to be closer to the text that discusses them, and I don't know how to do that.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagrams 

message: I think that section shouldn't be there, because everything is already covered in draw (chess). That being said,  I'm not removing it because I'd like to know if there's any chance of fixing that into the scope of endgame draws, principally stalemate and the fifty-move rule. fetofs Hello! 18:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I said in the comment to my edit a few hours ago.  I also doubt that it needs to be here, for the same reason as you mentioned.  But I didn't see fit to remove it just yet.  Perhaps what you are talking about is giving examples of endgames that are stalemates and draws under the 50-move rule?  There is probably already an example at stalemate. Bubba73 (talk), 23:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Statemate? That's a new one for me ;). But, going back into the discussion, if we aren't going to remove it just yet, we have to do something with it just yet. I'll try to rescope it. fetofs Hello! 12:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's fine with me.  I think it could be removed, though (with a link to draw (chess) left in).  Bubba73 (talk), 14:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Thinking about it some more, I think it should be removed.  It is a way games can end, but not necessarily an "ending", as we usually use the term.  A draw by agreement certainly doesn't have to come in an ending and 3-fold doesn't either.  50-move probably does, but not necessarily; same with stalemate.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yes, but a draw is not specific to the endgame, and there is already an artticle on draws.  Also, the section says that the most common reasons for a draw are stalemate, 50-moves, and insufficient material; and that others are agreement and 3-fold.  Draws by agreement are the most common in the endgame, probably followed by insufficient material. 50-move is quite rare.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That has changed since I last checked. It used to say that the 50-move rule was uncommon. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 20:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything factually wrong in the section is entirely my fault. Feel free to mercilessly delete it. fetofs Hello! 23:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  From above "A draw is a common resolution, and may often occur in the endgame".  Resignations, some time forfeits, and sometimes checkmates occur in the endgame too.  But all of these (including draws) cn occur in any phase of the game, so surely this is mentioned elsewhere, such as the main chess article.  I'm not seeing much significance of the section of draws in this article.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Besides being in draw (chess), it is in the main chess article as well as rules of chess.  I think it is suffucient to mention that an endgame may end in a draw or a win for one of the players.  But that seems obvious.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Delete the section entirely, then? fetofs Hello! 13:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I favor that, but I'm not going to do it unless we have a consensus.  It doesn't hurt to leave it in, I just don't think it is needed in this article, since it is in the others I mentioned.   Bubba73 (talk), 19:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I decided to take the section out, because it doesn't directly relate to endgames and it is covered in at least three other articles.  If someone objects, feel free to discuss it here.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drawn games 

message: Has anybody noticed that the article suggests that for other uses of the word Endgame, we look at the article for... Endgame?  Is this a leftover from when there were multiple articles on the subject, or what?--Raguleader 06:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your observation is correct.  It probably is a left over from something, I'm not sure though.  Perhaps this should be moved to Endgame (chess) and this page could have links to it and other uses, but I don't know of a pages of other uses.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I fixed the "other uses", but do you think the article should be moved to Endgame (chess)?  Bubba73 (talk), 03:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Similar related articles are named middlegame and chess opening.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For other uses of the word... 

message: I replaced the assumption that white is the attacking side and replaced "black" and "white" with "defender" and "attacker", resp.  Does anyone have any thoughts?  Bubba73 (talk), 03:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed another instance of black/white instead of defender/attacker in the section labeled "Bishop and pawn versus bishop on the same color".  I also reworded an apparent confusion in wording between the color of the bishop itself, and the color of the squares it travels on.  I hope someone can double-check this change.  CosineKitty (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I checked it.  Thanks for catching that.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, Bubba73.  Incidentally, I keep looking at the diagram labeled "Centurini, 1847".  The caption says White (to move) can win, but it looks like a draw.  It also seems to match the rules in this section for a draw.  Can someone clarify this?  If it is a win for White, how does White win?  Otherwise the caption should be fixed.  Thanks!   CosineKitty (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I put that in, let me check it.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

text:  The reference does give that as a win, but the second criteria for a draw does seem to apply.  Perhaps it means two diagonals that cross the pawn's path, and the black bishop can't maneuver on the a7-b8 diagonal.  I'll try to figure it out.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

text:  The defending bishop must have two diagonals, each of which have at least two squares to which it can move, not counting the square it is on.  I've changed it to reflect this.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  white/black -> attacking/defending 

message: The article was getting long, and the lengthly bibliography was moved to the new article Chess endgame literature, which also has two paragraphs about the history.  Several of the currently common and accessible books were left here.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bibliography 

message: "King and one bishop against king is a draw, and so is king and one knight against king." Any reason why these well-known facts are missing? Art LaPella 18:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is sort of covered under the "Basic checkmates" section and the checkmate article.  It states that two bishops or a bishop and knight are required.  That implies that one minor piece is not sufficient, but that isn't stated.  Do you think it needs to be in there?  Bubba73 (talk), 19:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I made it more explicit in the Basic Checkmates section.  However, the section did state that two knights was not sufficient and that clearly implies that one knight isn't sufficient.  It also states that two bishops on the same color can't checkmate, so it is clear that one bishop can't do it.  At least that is obvious to anyone familiar to chess, but a lot of readers aren't that familiar with it, so now it is in there explicitly.  Thank you for pointing this out.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Obvious omission

message: Here are notations for checkmates. 
:1:0     White wins. 
:0:1     Black wins. 
Let's add this. 
The castling notations, even though they do not mark the end of the game, are loosely based on this. 
:0:0     Castle King side. 
:0:0:0   Castle Queen side. 
I didn't find these anywhere, but I read them in a Chess strategy guide. 209.183.185.226 (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See algebraic chess notation.  "1-0" and "0-1" are notations for white (resp. black) wins, not necessarily checkmate.  "O-O" and "O-O-O" are notations for kingside (resp. queenside) castling.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 01:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A commonly used notation for checkmate is # (a pound sign).  H Padleckas (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

text: That's basically what I said, and a win is a checkmate unless the losing player resigns. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  A  time forfeit also counts as a win. Anyhow, how is any of this relevant to this article? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 01:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Checkmate notations 

message: There is a short paragraph in the lead that I think isn't very good:
:Many of the greatest players throughout history have considered the endgame to be of paramount importance because endgame theory is finite. Whereas chess opening theory changes frequently, giving way to middlegame positions that fall in and out of popularity, endgame theory always remains constant.
Anyone want to take a crack at that one?  Not only do I not like the wording, I don't think it's very accurate.  "Finiteness" and "remaining constant" don't have much to do with the importance of the endgame.  The lead should summarize the rest of the article and I don't see where that is taken up in the body.  Maybe it should just be removed. Quale (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The importance of endgame theory and its finiteness 

message: Why does 67.Bd5! get an exclamation in Portisch v. Tal (chess endgame#Bishop and pawn versus bishop on the same color)?  I can't imagine that any other move could be considered in that position.  Quale (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I;ll check it later, but it probably came from the Nunn convention.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 12:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, makes sense.  I hadn't even considered that. Quale (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portisch v. Tal 

message: Stronger could mean the side with material or positional advantage or the stronger(higher rated) player. As such it's use in the article makes for ambiguous reading or misreading. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 05:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are right.  It means in material.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: how about saying the player with 'material advantage' then you don't have to explain what 'stronger' is suppose to mean. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 01:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know.  It is kind of wordy and it is in there six times.  If you change it, I won't undo it.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stronger ambiguity 

message: "In the endgame, it is better for the player with more pawns to avoid too many pawn exchanges, because they should be won for nothing."GretDrabba (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: needs a fix

message: I inserted a citation required flag for the sentence, These are positions in which one side has only a king and the other side has one or two pieces and can checkmate the opposing king, with the pieces working together with their king. There is no general agreement on what constitutes a basic endgame and it is not Wikipedia's job to establish a standard meaning. Fine Basic Chess Endings 1941 includes an endgame where the stronger side has three pieces and Müller and Lamprecht Fundamental Chess Endings 2001 includes an endgame where neither side has only a king. Other sources can probably be found that correspond to none of these; I seem to remember Teach yourself chess including kqkr, but I may be wrong - It's a long time since I saw the book. Any classification in Wikipedia should adopt a neutral point of view, giving several differing sources.
Martin Rattigan (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic checkmates 

message: Added citation required flag to, 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). Black here can reach e8 but still loses.
A citation was given. I think this is probably a misquote or taken out of context, but I don't have the cited source. 
The sentence is still incorrect. I have added a note and diagram to that effect.
Given that the text now states a rule and immediately says that it doesn't necessarily hold whatever file the pawn is on, I feel it would be best to delete both the original text and my addition and leave any such discussion to the main article (which appears to be more accurate).
Can somebody who has M&L's Secrets of Pawn Endings verify that the original text is as stated in the book please? Martin Rattigan (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  King and pawn versus king 

message: Added citation required to sentences, An outside passed pawn can outweigh a protected passed central pawn, unlike king and pawn endgames.[citation needed] A knight blockading a protected passed pawn attacks the protector, while the knight blockading an outside passed pawn is somewhat out of action. Not obvious enough, or obviously a useful enough generalization to be included without any citation (even though it may be true in many situations).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Rattigan (talk • contribs) 01:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knight and pawn endings 

message: Added paragraph on castling rights suffix.Martin Rattigan (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endgame classification 

message: Is that statement really true?  Perhaps with the advent of 7 piece EGTBs it is true for all endgames with 7 or fewer pieces (where "pieces" includes kings and pawns).  It certainly wasn't a true statement before the year 2000.
"Whereas chess opening theory changes frequently, giving way to middlegame positions that fall in and out of popularity, endgame theory always remains constant."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyWP (talk • contribs) 19:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's bollocks. The endgame references I've seen all take delight in showing  the mistakes of previous authors and people like Troitsky come along. But feel free to alter the text if you think the effort is warranted. Martin Rattigan (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is an old observation that no one has acted on, but should we remove or rewrite the sentence about endgame theory remaining constant?  I think I understand what is intended, but it isn't true in a literal sense and I think it is just confusing.  Quale (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "(E)ndgame theory always remains constant." 

message: A recent rephrasing of the sentence describing exceptions introduced a couple inaccuracies, so I reverted.
* "bishops on opposite color with other pieces – the stronger side should avoid exchanging the other pieces" => "the stronger side should avoid exchanging pieces if bishops are on opposite colors" -- this is not correct since exchanging the opposite colored bishops would generally be good, the rewrite lost the "with other pieces" bit that is important
* "when all of the pawns are on the same side of the board, often the stronger side must exchange pawns to try to create a passed pawn" => "when more pawns are on the same side of the board, the stronger side should exchange pawns to try to create a passed pawn" -- not sure what "more pawns are on the same side of the board" is supposed to mean, but this isn't quite correct either.  Quale (talk)
: I agree.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  General considerations 

message: I improved the English and the logical flow and someone reverted
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chess_endgame&oldid=prev&diff=846641801
: I don't think so.
:* "(2) the stronger side should avoid exchanging pieces if bishops are on opposite colors"
:: The point is that when each side has one bishop and they are on opposite colors.  This is lost in your change.
:* "(3) when more pawns are on the same side of the board, the stronger side should exchange pawns to try to create a passed pawn."
: This doesn't make sense.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I explained the reason I reverted in the General considerations section above.  I agree with you that the sentence can be improved, but since the edit introduced at least two inaccuracies it needed to be undone.  Unfortunately it can be hard to improve the English and logical flow of a sentence on a technical subject.  Often the words have been chosen with some care to be accurate, and the important details can easily be lost in a rewrite since they can be hard to perceive unless you have some expertise in the subject matter.  We can work here on the talk page to try to find a better phrasing that remains correct.  Quale (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts 

message: Lucas chess has a formula for game phase (I believe lichess uses a very similar one?) Can I include a simplified version of the formula in the article? Alshfik (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I didn't reply earlier.  I'm not sure that formula is really relevant for this page, it's certainly not anything a human would ever use when playing or analyzing a game.  Also, how is the reader to interpret the parameter m (total material)?  The formula could be relevant on a page for the Lucas chess software, if such a page existed.  Quale (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lucas Chess 

message: I think this should not be listed in the basic checkmates section because the pawn has to be promoted, and then it is K+Q or K+R.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: King and pawn against king

message: Does anyone really need this graph?  Looks to me like an idea whose time has come and gone.  Bruce leverett (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it hurts and it gives information about how many people are going to the page.  It is interesting that it was ~ 200 a year ago then got to nearly 1,000, then tailed off.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The shape of the curve gives you an idea of the effect of The Queen's Gambit.  But that's an awful lot of screen real estate to use for a small item of information that isn't really relevant to the topic of this article.  Bruce leverett (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I changed it to a smaller version - uses very little space unless you click on "show".  How about that?  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, I forgot that show/hide buttons are a good solution for this kind of thing.  Bruce leverett (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the old one was an obsolete method. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daily page views 

message: "The winning chances with two knights are insignificant except against a few pawns. "  (I can't access the database.)  But this sentence sounds like the two knights have significant chances against several pawns.  Generally 2N vs P is a win if the pawn can be blocked on or before the Troitsky line.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is problematic.  By the way, the lead section of Two knights endgame has the same problem, though that article has a later section that makes things more clear.  KNNvKP is famous, thanks at least partly to Troitzky; all other KNNvK<any> endings, if there are any interesting ones, are obscure, and we shouldn't mention them unless we have to.  Bruce leverett (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  My daughter had the two knights in a 2N vs. P in a USCF tournament.  She didn't know anything about this endgame.  She just swapped a knight for the pawn.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarification needed 

message: how come in FRC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fischer_random_chess we had to move to wikiquote
but in chess endgame you don't? How many quotes until you move to wikiquote?
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess Thewriter006 (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  quotes 

message: We need a photo in the lead. Has anybody got any suggestions? Jack234567 (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be hard to find a photo where you could tell that it was an endgame, unless you set up one.  I think the diagram you added is fine. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've been making a lot of changes to this article. I believe its much better now, but please take a look over it and let me know if you or anybody else have any objections.  Jack234567 (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead photo