I don't get "or else compel Black to give up his rook for it. Either result will leave White with an overwhelming material advantage and a straightforward win."
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lucena position article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess
Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I don't get "or else compel Black to give up his rook for it. Either result will leave White with an overwhelming material advantage and a straightforward win." If blackexchanges rook by pawn, black will be left with king alone, whereas white has king plus rook, and I though king+roook alone wasn't enough for checkmate, so, why does white win? drini☎00:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
King and Rook vs King is an elementary mate. See if you can find how to mate with K and R v K in the Vikipedia. If you can't, do Gmail search (for Gmail users) or just ask me at [email protected]
Submitted by J.L.W.S. The Special One on 18 July 2005
Also see checkmate. I've been meaning to put the technique for the elementry checkmates there, but I haven't gotten around to it. Bubba73 15:31, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
King and Rook vs. King is an easy win because the superior side can put the inferior side in Zugzwang and slowly squeeze the opponent's king into a corner with or without checks. Interestingly, if the side with only the king was allowed to pass (unless he's in check), then K+R vs K would be a draw. This is because in some positions, the superior side must make a waiting move, and if the inferior side would pass, then the superior side has nothing better than to make another waiting move (or pass himself), ad infinitum.
But what the article doesn't say is that, in some cases of K + R + P vs K + R, White must sacrifice the rook in order to win by queening. This results in a king and queen vs king and rook endgame which is anything but straightforward. Even masters have had to concede draws because they were not able to find the winning moves. Worse, some of those positions require over 40 moves before the superior side can force capturing the rook (or checkmate) against perfect play. This makes it relatively easy to hit the 50 move rule against a strong defender. Aragorn223:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
" 1.Rd1+ Ke7
2.Kc7
gets nowhere (these moves are given in algebraic chess notation). Black can simply harass the white king with checks, and White makes no progress:
2. ... Rc2+"
This doesn't match the board position shown, because it obviously results 3. Rxc2. I'm not familiar with this exact position, but someone who is ought to fix this up.
Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The article now says "It is important for White's rook to go to the fourth or fifth rank; the fourth rank is considered the most elegant solution to the Lucena position." It seems to me that going to the fifth rank doesn't work as well. From the position, if 2. Rd5 then 2... Ke6. If the rook stays on the fifth rank (e.g. 3. Rb5 or 3. Rg5) then 3... Kd7 and white has not made progress. According to the endgame tablebase, after 2... Ke6, the best move is to bring the rook to the fourth rank with 3. Rd4. Bubba73(talk), 21:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
The defensive king wants to be on the 7th rank: Black loses a tempo bring it back. (If Black strays too far, White can hide his K on the same file as the enemy K.) The move that prolongs resistance is not always the move that offers the most resistance. Put down the database & pick up Averbakh, Levenfish & Smyslov, or (if you MUST have a database-checked reference) Nunn's wonderful _Secrets of Rook Endings_. Billbrock01:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
prononouncation?
Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
In the English version, it states that "The position is incorrectly named after the Spaniard Luis Ramirez de Lucena. The name "Lucena" is pronounced "Loo THAY na" in Castilian Spanish (Shenk 2006:79)." However, the Spanish article states the opposite, and so does the English piece on Lucena. Which party is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.252.98 (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
The opposite about who it is named for or how it is pronounced? It is well-documented that it is incorrectly attributed to Lucena. As far as pronunciation, I've usually heard "ch" but I don't know if that is correct. The book by Shenk says that it is "th" in Castialian Spanish, and Luchena was that. So I don't know what the correct pronunciation is. Bubba73You talkin' to me?20:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The article says that: "An obvious approach by White (in the position above) such as 1. Rd1+ Ke7 2. Kc7 gets nowhere". I think it is better to precise that White can still win the game (although the white king needs to step back). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.148.154.29 (talk) 10:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Chapter "Similar positions may be drawn" shows position satisfying all criteria for a win, yet is drawn! What gives?
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The position shown in this chapter fulfills all criteria given at the beginning of the article. There, it is claimed these criteria are always winning (with acurate play). Is there a missing criterion (e.g. attacker to move)?
--Felix Tritschler (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Black's rook has room to keep checking the white king. If the king stays near its pawn, the rook can keep checking. If the king goes after the rook (to stop the checks), the rook can get behind the pawn. Bubba73You talkin' to me?02:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.