Quick answer
Bishop versus Knight Endings is an endgame technique: same-color bishop ending. Work from the first evidence position for Bishop versus Knight Endings, and begin by testing Bf5.
Begin from Bf5 in 7k/5p2/4b3/8/3K4/8/2B5/8 b - - 1 1. Count the material, king routes, promotion squares and reserve tempi before applying a theoretical rule. The evidence answer is: Bishop versus Knight Endings: compare the fixed pawn color with the bishop's useful diagonals before exchanging. Candidate line: Bf5 Bd3.
In the Bishop versus Knight Endings example, notice: side Black; pieces Black king h8, Black pawn f7, Black bishop e6, White king d4, White bishop c2; legal first moves Kg7, Kg8, f6, f5, Bd7, Bc8, Bf5, Bg4. Everything named after “notice” is descriptive of one recorded board, not prescriptive for all games.
Material and result question
The first evidence board tests same-color bishop ending; the second board tests same-color bishop ending. Board A’s recorded route is direct FEN setup. Board B’s recorded route is direct FEN setup. Start from the Chess Wiki, then the Endgames hub, for nearby labels. Then compare Material Values with Opposite Color Bishop Endings, Knight Versus Pawns, Knight Endgame Outpost around the defender's only active counterplay.
The two inventories make the distinction concrete. A contains side Black; pieces Black king h8, Black pawn f7, Black bishop e6, White king d4, White bishop c2; legal first moves Kg7, Kg8, f6, f5, Bd7, Bc8, Bf5, Bg4; B contains side White; pieces Black king h8, Black pawn f7, Black bishop e6, White king d3, White bishop b1; legal first moves Kd4, Ke4, Ke3, Ke2, Kd2, Kc2, Kc3, Ba2. Compare the side to move before comparing the labels in the context of an outside passer used as a decoy.
Topic dossier for this page and board pair r1:7k | r2:5p2 | r3:4b3 | r4:8 | r5:3K4 | r6:8 | r7:2B5 | r8:8 / r1:7k | r2:5p2 | r3:4b3 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:3K4 | r7:8 | r8:1B6: start with the defender's only active counterplay; then test an outside passer used as a decoy; keep the defender's fortress setup separate from the pawn's promotion square; use a reserve pawn move as the transfer check; and reserve the side-to-move tempo for the exception.
Conversion or defense plan
On the first board, calculate Bf5 Bd3 after Bf5 and write down the opponent's best reply around the defender's only active counterplay. On the second board, calculate Kd4 after Kd4 and check an outside passer used as a decoy. Separate the practical conversion question from the result question; side to move and one checking distance can change the conclusion. In this case the useful condition is the side-to-move tempo.
Key claim: Bishop versus Knight Endings is illustrated here by same-color bishop ending; the first concrete test is Bf5. The board anchor is 7k/5p2/4b3/8/3K4/8/2B5/8; the example is intentionally narrower than the topic label and should not be generalised without checking the surrounding position..
Practical boundary: To answer “What exact king, pawn, and move-order conditions decide bishop versus knight endings, and how should each side play them?”, compare the recorded setup with Kd4 and the opponent's reply. The decision is useful only when the stated condition survives that concrete test on board 7k/5p2/4b3/8/8/3K4/8/1B6. The evidence records No tablebase outcome is asserted by this generated record; verify the exact FEN before publication and the second board signature r1:7k | r2:5p2 | r3:4b3 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:3K4 | r7:8 | r8:1B6. The false-positive test is whether the defender's fortress setup appears without the pawn's promotion square, so the conclusion is useful only when the stated condition survives that concrete test.
Evidence positions
example-1: same-color bishop ending
Show answer
Bishop versus Knight Endings: compare the fixed pawn color with the bishop's useful diagonals before exchanging. Candidate line: Bf5 Bd3.
Why this position is here: Bishop versus Knight Endings is represented by same-color bishop ending. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 7k/5p2/4b3/8/3K4/8/2B5/8; no opening history is inferred from the diagram.
FEN: 7k/5p2/4b3/8/3K4/8/2B5/8 b - - 1 1
Question: What is the first concrete decision in this bishop versus knight endings position?
Answer cue: Bishop versus Knight Endings: compare the fixed pawn color with the bishop's useful diagonals before exchanging. Candidate line: Bf5 Bd3. The first candidate to test is Bf5. Replay Bf5 Bd3 on board anchor 7k/5p2/4b3/8/3K4/8/2B5/8 and write down what changes after it.
Evidence boundary: No tablebase outcome is asserted by this generated record; verify the exact FEN before publication.
example-2: same-color bishop ending
Show answer
Bishop versus Knight Endings: compare the fixed pawn color with the bishop's useful diagonals before exchanging. Candidate line: Kd4.
Why this position is here: Bishop versus Knight Endings is represented by same-color bishop ending. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 7k/5p2/4b3/8/8/3K4/8/1B6; no opening history is inferred from the diagram.
FEN: 7k/5p2/4b3/8/8/3K4/8/1B6 w - - 4 3
Question: What is the first concrete decision in this bishop versus knight endings position?
Answer cue: Bishop versus Knight Endings: compare the fixed pawn color with the bishop's useful diagonals before exchanging. Candidate line: Kd4. The first candidate to test is Kd4. Replay Kd4 on board anchor 7k/5p2/4b3/8/8/3K4/8/1B6 and write down what changes after it.
Evidence boundary: No tablebase outcome is asserted by this generated record; verify the exact FEN before publication.
example-3: same-color bishop ending
Show answer
Bishop versus Knight Endings: compare the fixed pawn color with the bishop's useful diagonals before exchanging. Candidate line: Bf5 Bd3.
Why this position is here: Bishop versus Knight Endings is represented by same-color bishop ending. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 7k/5p2/4b3/8/3K4/8/8/1B6; no opening history is inferred from the diagram.
FEN: 7k/5p2/4b3/8/3K4/8/8/1B6 b - - 5 3
Question: What is the first concrete decision in this bishop versus knight endings position?
Answer cue: Bishop versus Knight Endings: compare the fixed pawn color with the bishop's useful diagonals before exchanging. Candidate line: Bf5 Bd3. The first candidate to test is Bf5. Replay Bf5 Bd3 on board anchor 7k/5p2/4b3/8/3K4/8/8/1B6 and write down what changes after it.
Evidence boundary: No tablebase outcome is asserted by this generated record; verify the exact FEN before publication.
Reading the line
Read the first example (id example-1) as a complete record: continuation Bf5 Bd3, source tablebase. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 7k/5p2/4b3/8/3K4/8/2B5/8; no opening history is inferred from the diagram. If A does not expose same-color bishop ending, correct the evidence before relying on the prose.
Read the second example (id example-2) separately: continuation Kd4, source tablebase. Its feature is same-color bishop ending; inventory side White; pieces Black king h8, Black pawn f7, Black bishop e6, White king d3, White bishop b1; legal first moves Kd4, Ke4, Ke3, Ke2, Kd2, Kc2, Kc3, Ba2. Compare what changes between Bf5 and Kd4.
Boundary cases
The main mistake to avoid with Bishop versus Knight Endings is applying a remembered endgame rule while ignoring side to move, king placement or an unverified result. In A, the missing condition must be located in r1:7k | r2:5p2 | r3:4b3 | r4:8 | r5:3K4 | r6:8 | r7:2B5 | r8:8 after Bf5; in B, test it against r1:7k | r2:5p2 | r3:4b3 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:3K4 | r7:8 | r8:1B6 after Kd4.
For Bishop versus Knight Endings, the first board's evidence boundary (after Bf5) is No tablebase outcome is asserted by this generated record; verify the exact FEN before publication. The second board's evidence boundary for Bishop versus Knight Endings is No tablebase outcome is asserted by this generated record; verify the exact FEN before publication. If a trusted source or careful calculation changes the conclusion around a reserve pawn move, update both the evidence record and this article.
Practice from a real game
play the position for both sides, record the critical tempo, and verify the exact FEN against the cited tablebase before publication. Start with A's side to move and r1:7k | r2:5p2 | r3:4b3 | r4:8 | r5:3K4 | r6:8 | r7:2B5 | r8:8; record two candidates, the reply to Bf5 Bd3 and the correction. Repeat with B's side to move and r1:7k | r2:5p2 | r3:4b3 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:3K4 | r7:8 | r8:1B6; the changed board tests transfer rather than diagram memory.
After the drill, compare your notes with Opposite Color Bishop Endings, Knight Versus Pawns, Knight Endgame Outpost through the pawn's promotion square. Keep A's rejected alternative beside B's chosen line Kd4; this shows whether the conclusion survived a new board signature.
Sources and scope
Sources for Bishop versus Knight Endings: Syzygy tablebase verification reference, 1chess.online editorial scope. Source ids are tablebase, original-analysis. Primary evidence hook: tablebase. Comparisons and practice notes are editorial. Evidence revision: 2026-08-remediation-r2.
Scope note for board pair r1:7k | r2:5p2 | r3:4b3 | r4:8 | r5:3K4 | r6:8 | r7:2B5 | r8:8 / r1:7k | r2:5p2 | r3:4b3 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:3K4 | r7:8 | r8:1B6: this page does not claim that Bf5 Bd3 is an engine principal variation, that an exact endgame result is verified when the evidence says it is not, or that a tool output replaces human calculation. The conclusion is limited to the recorded boundary and the exception the defender's fortress setup.