-18

The other day I witnessed a National Master fail to checkmate using a queen vs rook. While it was blitz, it seemed like the national master didn't know Philidor's position.

Question: Is pawnless queen vs rook perhaps not so common in practical play? I believe Philidor's position is indeed common for practical play.

BCLC
  • 1
  • 1
  • 15
  • 42
Jossie Calderon
  • 2,428
  • 10
  • 25
  • 9
    "Masters are bad at endings" does not logically follow from "I once saw a master flub an ending". – Nuclear Hoagie Oct 17 '18 at 17:27
  • @Nuclear Wang I've seen it happen time and time again, sir. – Jossie Calderon Oct 17 '18 at 17:46
  • 9
    This might be the most condescending question on this site to date. – Scounged Oct 17 '18 at 19:39
  • 6
    Yeah, and why are the greatest basketball players [so bad at dunking](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHPeUPHfqVg)? – ETD Oct 17 '18 at 19:40
  • 7
    To me it seems like the downvotes are proportional to how condescending the question is. In truth this sounds more like a rant that a real question. – Isac Oct 18 '18 at 15:44
  • @Isac edited post how is it now? – BCLC Nov 21 '21 at 09:37
  • @JossieCalderon 'I've seen it happen time and time again, sir.' --> then why didn't you say this in OP? – BCLC Nov 21 '21 at 09:37
  • 2
    @Scounged i think: it's worse than condescending. condescending implies you have some authority. for example a superGM saying pogchamps sucks is condescending. this is like a pogchamps level player saying magnus carlsen sucks for not beating wesley so once in the world fischer random championship. i think like temerity, audacity, ignorance, etc – BCLC Nov 21 '21 at 09:40
  • 1
    I think the improvement is indeed outstanding, as it now somewhat resembles a normal question. Kudos to you @BCLC – Isac Nov 22 '21 at 00:01
  • i'm gonna go ahead and upvote the OP(ost) even if the OP(oster) was rude . thank you @Isac ! – BCLC Dec 01 '21 at 00:46

2 Answers2

12

Some pawnless endgames, like mating with bishop and knight, or the queen vs. rook case you mention, just don't occur that much in practice, especially compared to pawn endgames or rook endgames. That means players are less likely to study them, and unfortunately for those players, in these endgames one often can't rely on general principles (rooks behind passed pawns or on the 7th rank, weak vs. strong bishops). I doubt masters would have any difficulties with a king + pawn vs. king endgame.

Also, let me quote Karsten Müller and Frank Lamprecht from their book Fundamental Chess Endings:

The queen always wins against a lone rook unless there is an immediate draw such as perpetual check or stalemate. The winning nature of the ending has been known for a long time and it was believed to be quite easy to force a win. However, the appearance of computer databases in 1978 caused the ending to be seen in a new light. While they confirmed that the queen should win from all normal starting positions, they also showed that it was quite difficult to win if the defender played precisely.

(emphasis mine)

Glorfindel
  • 24,745
  • 6
  • 67
  • 114
3

The problem is that winning with a Q v R requires multiple quiet moves which are not obvious at all to a human in blitz play. Not to mention these type of endgames are really only studied by GMs because at master level these endgames do not happen enough to justify studying them extensively. And even GMs screw up these type of endgames like RB V R or even RK v R in classic time controls fairly often.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070866

Kasparov won a dead drawn endgame that even I should be able to draw no problem.

Matthew Liu
  • 1,065
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7