Talk:Rook and pawn versus rook endgame

short side

Much of the material in the new section "short side" overlaps with the earlier section "similar positions and the short side defense" (down the page). I think these need to be combined. Bubba73 (talk), 00:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

planned reorganization

Within the next few days or few weeks, I plan to reorganize this article like this:

Winning methods

cutting the king off on a rank

Cutting of the king - rule of five

Lucena position

Alternate method

Defensive methods

Frontal defense

Back-rank defense

Philidor position

Short-side defense (should combine the current two sections on this)

Long-side blunder

Last-rank defense

Rook pawn

Vancura position

Some of the sections aren't in the article yet. Bubba73 (talk), 20:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Rule of five, 4th part

Quite unclear here if white wins or it's a draw. No explanation. Someone just edited to say it's a draw. I'm not so sure. ChessCreator (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That was vandalism. The Soltis version of the "rule of five" is a little over-simplified - there is an exception for the knight pawn, I think. Bubba73 (talk), 15:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

First example

The position is "r7/8/3R3k/8/8/8/1P6/3K4 b" in [FEN] with the caption "Black to move, White converts to a won position in 60 moves"

According to online [endgame tables], this position is actually a draw if black response Kg5. This example should be redone with the assumption that black responses Kg7 in which case white wins in 56 moves.

MerickOWA (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll check on that. The book gives 60 moves as the max for that ending and gives three examples. That is one of the examples. I am not in favor of saying it takes 56 moves, since the intention was to give an example requiring the maximum 60 moves. Bubba73 (talk), 21:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The book gives a maximum of 60 moves to either checkmate, promote the pawn, or capture the rook. It gives three example positions, but two of them seem wrong. So I changed it to the other position. Bubba73 (talk), 00:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Colour bias

Why does the whole article read as if white has an inherent advantage? It is confusing to new players who may misconstrue that black always loses. The colour references are un-necessary and should be removed, or at least equalised. Lenzar (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Because that is the standard convention. See the Terminology section. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That line could easily be removed and the article equalised. Hiding behind convention is no excuse. Lenzar (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows its sources. It isn't our place to disregard the common conventions of chess writing because you dislike them. Quale (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no point in "equalizing" the article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Fundamental importance

Oxygen, food and shelter are "of fundamental importance"; aspects of chess are, to most people, not. I've attempted to tone down the hyperbole in the opening sentence, but it's still not clear which of the given references support this claim, and which support the statement that "[it] has been widely studied". Unlss this is made clear and cited, the phrase should be removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It is of fundamental importance in chess endings, as the first sentence says. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for making it do so, after I wrote the above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

To me it said the same thing. The first three words of the old sentence were "the chess ending" and then it went on to say how fundamental it was. What else could it be? Could it be fundamental to Asian history? No. And the "some writers consider ..." weasel words you put in are grandmasters. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Romanovsky drawing zone

What about the Romanovsky drawing zone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nzarathoustra (talk • contribs) 11:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This relates to when the Vančura position can be reached, so I put it in that section. It is very interesting, but there are a lot of things like this and this article can't cover all of them. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Color of pieces.

Can anyone explain why the color black isn't be used anymore for showing all the black pieces on board diagrams, on any Wikipedia page about Chess? Thank you!! AA Pilot16 (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

And for that matter, why the white pieces are now a shade of gray? Thanks again. AA Pilot 16. AA Pilot16 (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just figured it out. I use a dark mode on my cell phone, and it plays with the color of the pieces, as show on a Wikipage on chess(see above comments) . Perhaps someone can still address this, as I'm sure I'm not the only person who uses this mode. Pieces really get confusing, as some of Black's pieces are black, but some pieces are a bright white, and White's pieces all look a shade of gray. Thanks. AA Pilot16 (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect Analysis.

In the section under "Most Common Rook Endgame", where it states "In this diagram, White to move wins, starting with 1. Ke2. Black to move draws.[69]" is incorrect analysis. While this position is of interest to analyze for a student, tablebases have proven that this position is a draw. 1. Ke2 and 1... Ra3 is the only drawing move. There is no move for white that leads to a forced win. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.55.112.185 (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

You are right about that. I suggest that we remove it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I checked the reference, and the diagram had the black king on the wrong square. The corrected diagram is a win for White. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Good catch, I didn't consider it was the wrong position from the source reference. Position checks out now, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.55.112.185 (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to you for spotting the error (I think it was mine). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)