Answers.Body: <p>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.</p>
  
  <p><a href="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070866" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070866</a></p>
  
  <p>Kasparov won a dead drawn endgame that even I should be able to draw no problem.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-10-17T19:30:02.760Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-10-17T19:30:02.760Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Matthew Liu
Answers.Body: <p>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.</p>
  
  <p>Also, let me quote Karsten Müller and Frank Lamprecht from their book Fundamental Chess Endings:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>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 <strong>quite difficult to win if the defender played precisely.</strong></p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>(emphasis mine)</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-10-17T18:08:42.473Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-10-17T18:08:42.473Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Glorfindel
Body: <p>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.</p>
  <p><strong>Question</strong>: Is pawnless queen vs rook perhaps not so common in practical play? I believe Philidor's position is indeed common for practical play.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-10-17T17:27:34.520Z
Comments.Text: "Masters are bad at endings" does not logically follow from "I once saw a master flub an ending".
Comments.UserDisplayName: Nuclear Hoagie
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-10-17T17:46:53.640Z
Comments.Text: @Nuclear Wang I've seen it happen time and time again, sir.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Jossie Calderon
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-10-17T19:39:34.410Z
Comments.Text: This might be the most condescending question on this site to date.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-10-17T19:40:22.057Z
Comments.Text: Yeah, and why are the greatest basketball players [so bad at dunking](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHPeUPHfqVg)?
Comments.UserDisplayName: ETD
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-10-18T15:44:28.820Z
Comments.Text: 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.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Isac
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-11-21T09:37:04.360Z
Comments.Text: @Isac edited post how is it now?
Comments.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-11-21T09:37:49.430Z
Comments.Text: @JossieCalderon 'I've seen it happen time and time again, sir.' --> then why didn't you say this in OP?
Comments.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-11-21T09:40:22.347Z
Comments.Text: @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
Comments.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-11-22T00:01:34.660Z
Comments.Text: I think the improvement is indeed outstanding, as it now somewhat resembles a normal question. Kudos to you @BCLC
Comments.UserDisplayName: Isac
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-12-01T00:46:16.743Z
Comments.Text: i'm gonna go ahead and upvote the OP(ost) even if the OP(oster) was rude . thank you @Isac !
Comments.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Tags: <endgame><queen-and-rook-endgame>
Title: I saw a master fail to win pawnless queen vs rook
ThreadText: # I saw a master fail to win pawnless queen vs rook
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2018-10-17)
  
  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.
  
  **Tags:** endgame, queen-and-rook-endgame
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: "Masters are bad at endings" does not logically follow from "I once saw a master flub an ending".  
  > **username_0**: @Nuclear Wang I've seen it happen time and time again, sir.  
  > **username_2**: This might be the most condescending question on this site to date.  
  > **username_3**: Yeah, and why are the greatest basketball players [so bad at dunking](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHPeUPHfqVg)?  
  > **username_4**: 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.  
  > **username_5**: @username_4 edited post how is it now?  
  > **username_5**: @JossieCalderon 'I've seen it happen time and time again, sir.' --> then why didn't you say this in OP?  
  > **username_5**: @username_2 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  
  > **username_4**: I think the improvement is indeed outstanding, as it now somewhat resembles a normal question. Kudos to you @username_5  
  > **username_5**: i'm gonna go ahead and upvote the OP(ost) even if the OP(oster) was rude . thank you @username_4 !  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2018-10-17. Score: 12 | Accepted answer
  
  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)
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2018-10-17. Score: 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.
  
  
  ---
  
  