Talk:Queen and pawn versus queen endgame
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Ka5 edit
I'd like to know what 63. ... Ka5 leads to, btw. 23191Pa (chat me, but mind the alphas!) 02:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is an illegal move - it would put Black in check. What is the reference for this article? Bubba73 (talk), 02:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- The reference was (and probably still is for some parts) Graham Burgess's The Mammoth Book of Chess. Double sharp (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
"chances to win" poppycock edit
Most of the chess endgame articles here are woefully obsolete (some, including this one, not having seen an edit in half a decade) and reliant upon pre-engine-era sources (e.g., Nunn) for their analytical claims, when the discussed positions, if tossed into an online contemporary engine (such chess.com/analysis), are almost immediately resolved as either forced wins or forced draws. There are no "chances" independent of player blundering. --2601:444:380:3A90:FDD0:FAF3:224E:AE54 (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- You are probably talking about statements such as "A knight pawn has more practical winning chances than a rook pawn. " A chess engine deals with particular positions. This is a general statement. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Q+2P vs. Q edit
The Lputian vs. Haroutjunian position is still getting messed up each time. It should be White: Kh4, Qe4, Pg5, Ph6; Black: KH8, Qd7. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- Now fixed per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess#Need help with diagram. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Incorrect evaluation edit
The diagram is incorrect: with the black king on d3 and black to move, White wins but the diagram has a white dot, meaning black to move draws.
| 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 | ||
144.137.130.161 (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks - I probably made a mistake making up the diagram. I don't have access to the book right now, but I will check it soon. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- The diagram in the article is the same as is in the book. Can you provide evidence that it is wrong, i.e. from an endgame database? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=8/8/8/1P6/1K6/2Qk4/8/3q4_b_-_-_0_1 2001:8003:7829:B01:9957:3641:2BE2:7289 (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- The diagram in the article is the same as is in the book. Can you provide evidence that it is wrong, i.e. from an endgame database? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll fix it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)