Other types of pawnless endings have been studied. 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 wins in 41.75% of the positions. •
Two queens versus one queen: Almost always a win. A
cross-check may be necessary, see Cross-check (chess)#Two queens versus one for an example.
Major pieces only •
Queen versus rook: see
above. •
Queen versus two rooks: this is usually a draw, but either side may have a win. •
Queen versus three rooks: this is nearly always a win for the rooks. This is rare in serious play, and occurs when promoting to a queen would give stalemate, but three rooks versus a queen is usually a straightforward win, especially when the defending king must be quite well confined for stalemate to be an issue for QRR v Q. •
Queen and a rook versus a queen and a rook: Despite the equality of , the player to move first wins in 83% of the positions. In a rook and pawn ending, if both sides
queen a pawn, the side that gives check first frequently wins. •
Queen and rook versus a queen: this is a win. •
Two rooks versus a rook: this is usually a win because the attacking king can usually escape checks by the opposing rook (which is hard to judge in advance). •
Rook versus rook: this is normally a draw, but a win is possible in some positions where one of the kings is in the corner or on the edge of the board and threatened with checkmate. See for example the
Saavedra position.
Queens and rooks with minor pieces •
Queen versus a rook and a : this is usually a draw. 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. •
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. •
Queen and a minor piece versus a rook and minor piece: this is normally a win for the queen. •
Rook and two minor pieces versus a queen: draw. •
Queen and a minor piece versus two rooks: this is usually a draw for 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 third rank with the opposing king on the other side and keep the king behind the rooks, though this does not always guarantee the draw. This case with a bishop and queen versus rooks is unusual in that such a small advantage forces a win. It was thought to be a draw by human analysis, but computer analysis revealed a long forced win. •
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. 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. •
Queen, rook, and minor piece versus queen and rook: as of 2006, had not been analysed, but was thought to be too volatile to draw general conclusions. •
Queen versus two minor pieces: see
above. •
Queen versus three minor pieces: draw except for a queen versus three bishops all on the same color, which in many positions is a win for the queen. •
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
Horowitz).
Alexey Troitsky showed that four knights win against a queen. •
Queen and a minor piece versus a queen: this is usually a draw unless the stronger side can quickly win (see Nyazova vs. Levant and Spassky vs. Karpov). With a knight, however, the stronger side has good winning chances in practice because the knight can create non-linear threats to fork the opponent's pieces and very accurate play is required from the defender to hold the position. There are 38 positions of
reciprocal zugzwang and the longest win takes 35 moves until the knight forks the queen and king. •
Queen and two minor pieces versus queen and one minor piece: generally a draw except in the case QBB vs QN (won for the bishops). Many combinations involve extremely long winning lines. The position is a theoretical draw but Karpov later
blundered in
time trouble and
resigned on move 84.
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#.
Rooks and minor pieces •
Two rooks versus two minor pieces: this is normally a win for the rooks. •
Two bishops and a knight versus a rook: this is usually a win for the three pieces but it takes up to sixty-eight moves. {{Chess diagram •
A bishop and two knights versus a rook: this is usually a draw, but there are some wins for the three pieces requiring up to forty-nine moves. Staunton in 1847 correctly concluded that the normal result of this endgame is a draw.
Bernhard Horwitz and
Josef Kling gave the same appraisal in 1851. During
adjournment of the
Karpov versus
Kasparov game, Kasparov (initially unsure if it is a draw) analyzed that a successful defense is having the king near a corner that the 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. (See the position from the Karpov versus Kasparov game for a drawn position, and see Fifty-move rule#Karpov vs. Kasparov, 1991 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. •
Rook and a knight versus a bishop and knight: this is usually a draw, but there are some wins for the rook and knight that take up to 190 moves. •
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 wins take up to ninety-eight moves. •
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 same color. •
Rook versus two minor pieces: this is normally a draw. •
Rook and two minor pieces versus rook and one minor piece: a win for the three pieces, Normally a draw if the minor piece is a knight, but some very long wins exist. That being said, with so many major pieces on the board most positions are not tactically quiet, so general conclusions are difficult to draw. See
Effect of tablebases on endgame theory, Fortress (chess)#Semi-fortress in two bishops vs. knight and see the example from the Botvinnik versus Tal game below. Also see the tournament game of Manotas vs van Riemsdijk, where Black (the side with the bishops) broke the Kling and Horwitz semi-fortress and won the knight. •
Other cases: this is normally a draw in all other cases. •
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. Three knights win against one knight (see for example Branka Vujic-Katanic vs. Marija Petrovic 1985). •
Three minor pieces versus two minor pieces: if neither player has a pair of same-colored bishops, this is a won endgame exactly when the stronger side has the bishop pair and the weaker side lacks it (i.e. BBN vs BN or BBN vs NN). Otherwise, it is a draw. •
Three knights can force checkmate against a lone king within 20 moves (unless the defending king can win one of the knights), but this combination of pieces can only happen if the attacking side has
underpromoted a pawn to a knight.
Example from game An ending with two bishops versus a knight occurred in the seventeenth game of the
1961 World Chess Championship match between
Mikhail Botvinnik and
Mikhail Tal. The position occurred after White captured a pawn on a6 on his 77th move, and White resigned on move 84. :
77... Bf1+ :
78. Kb6 Kd6 :
79. Na5 White to move could reach the semi-fortress from this position: 1.Nb7+ Kd5 2.Kc7 Bd2 3.Kb6 Bf4 4.Nd8 Be3+ 5.Kc7. White gets his knight to b7 with his king next to it to form a long-term
fortress. :
79... Bc5+ :
80. Kb7 Be2 :
81. Nb3 Be3 :
82. Na5 Kc5 :
83. Kc7 Bf4+ The game might continue 84.Kd7 Kb6 85.Nb3 Be3, followed by ...Bd1 and ...Bd4, for example 86.Kd6 Bd1 87.Na1 Bd4 88.Kd5 Bxa1. ==Examples with an extra minor piece==