Minor-Piece Endings

Bishop, knight, and bishop versus knight in the endgame.

The character of the two minor pieces differs sharply in the endgame. Recognising which piece suits which position is a practical advantage before trading into an ending.

Bishop endings

The bishop's long range is a strength in open positions and on both wings at once. The corresponding weakness is that a bishop controls squares of only one colour, and a bishop restricted by its own pawns on that colour — a bad bishop — is often a liability. The rule of thumb is that pawns should be placed on squares of the opposite colour to one's own bishop.

Opposite-coloured bishop endings are famously drawish. Because each side's bishop controls squares the other's cannot influence, a pawn deficit of two is frequently held. The defender hides the king on the bishop's colour and the attacker cannot force entry.

Knight endings

The knight's short range makes it an inferior piece on an open board with pawns on both wings. A knight is equal to or stronger than a bishop when the pawns are all on one wing, when the position is closed, or when a strong outpost is available. Knight endings tend to play like pawn endings: the knight cannot lose a tempo, and the opposition between kings remains important.

Bishop versus knight

The bishop is generally preferred when:

Pawns are on both wings.

The position is open.

There are passed pawns on opposite wings.

The knight is generally preferred when:

Pawns are fixed on squares of the bishop's colour.

The position is closed.

A strong outpost is available on the fourth, fifth, or sixth rank.

José Raúl Capablanca's endgame practice, in particular his handling of bishop versus knight, is the standard reference in the endgame literature. The game Janowski – Capablanca, New York 1916, with Capablanca as Black, is a frequently cited example of a minor piece dominating in a closed strategic position.