Quick answer
Bishop versus Pawns is an endgame technique: same-color bishop ending. Work from the first evidence position for Bishop versus Pawns, and begin by testing Bd3.
Begin from Bd3 in 7k/5p2/8/8/2b5/5K2/2B5/8 b - - 5 3. Count the material, king routes, promotion squares and reserve tempi before applying a theoretical rule. The evidence answer is: Bishop versus Pawns: compare the fixed pawn color with the bishop's useful diagonals before exchanging. Candidate line: Bd3.
In the Bishop versus Pawns example, notice: side Black; pieces Black king h8, Black pawn f7, Black bishop c4, White king f3, White bishop c2; legal first moves Kg7, Kg8, f6, f5, Bb5, Ba6, Bd5+, Be6. Use the inventory as a reading aid for this position alone rather than as a template for other games.
Material and result question
The first evidence board tests same-color bishop ending; the second board tests same-color bishop ending. Use direct FEN setup to reconstruct A and direct FEN setup to reconstruct B when the evidence includes move text. Related definitions sit in the Chess Wiki and the Endgames hub. Then compare Material Values with Knight Endgame Outpost, Two Bishops Versus Bishop, Bishop Pair Endgames around an outside passer used as a decoy.
The two inventories make the distinction concrete. A contains side Black; pieces Black king h8, Black pawn f7, Black bishop c4, White king f3, White bishop c2; legal first moves Kg7, Kg8, f6, f5, Bb5, Ba6, Bd5+, Be6; B contains side White; pieces Black king h8, Black pawn f7, Black bishop e6, White bishop f5, White king f3; legal first moves Bxe6, Bg6, Bh7, Bg4, Bh3, Be4, Bd3, Bc2. Compare the side to move before comparing the labels in the context of the defender's only active counterplay.
Topic dossier for this page and board pair r1:7k | r2:5p2 | r3:8 | r4:8 | r5:2b5 | r6:5K2 | r7:2B5 | r8:8 / r1:7k | r2:5p2 | r3:4b3 | r4:5B2 | r5:8 | r6:5K2 | r7:8 | r8:8: start with an outside passer used as a decoy; then test the defender's only active counterplay; keep the pawn's promotion square separate from the defender's fortress setup; use the side-to-move tempo as the transfer check; and reserve a reserve pawn move for the exception.
Conversion or defense plan
On the first board, calculate Bd3 after Bd3 and write down the opponent's best reply around an outside passer used as a decoy. On the second board, calculate Bd3 after Bd3 and check the defender's only active counterplay. 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 a reserve pawn move.
Key claim: Bishop versus Pawns is illustrated here by same-color bishop ending; the first concrete test is Bd3. The board anchor is 7k/5p2/8/8/2b5/5K2/2B5/8; 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 pawns, and how should each side play them?”, compare the recorded setup with Bd3 and the opponent's reply. The decision is useful only when the stated condition survives that concrete test on board 7k/5p2/4b3/5B2/8/5K2/8/8. 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 | r4:5B2 | r5:8 | r6:5K2 | r7:8 | r8:8. The false-positive test is whether the pawn's promotion square appears without the defender's fortress setup, 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 Pawns: compare the fixed pawn color with the bishop's useful diagonals before exchanging. Candidate line: Bd3.
Why this position is here: Bishop versus Pawns is represented by same-color bishop ending. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 7k/5p2/8/8/2b5/5K2/2B5/8; no opening history is inferred from the diagram.
FEN: 7k/5p2/8/8/2b5/5K2/2B5/8 b - - 5 3
Question: What is the first concrete decision in this bishop versus pawns position?
Answer cue: Bishop versus Pawns: compare the fixed pawn color with the bishop's useful diagonals before exchanging. Candidate line: Bd3. The first candidate to test is Bd3. Replay Bd3 on board anchor 7k/5p2/8/8/2b5/5K2/2B5/8 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 Pawns: compare the fixed pawn color with the bishop's useful diagonals before exchanging. Candidate line: Bd3.
Why this position is here: Bishop versus Pawns is represented by same-color bishop ending. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 7k/5p2/4b3/5B2/8/5K2/8/8; no opening history is inferred from the diagram.
FEN: 7k/5p2/4b3/5B2/8/5K2/8/8 w - - 4 3
Question: What is the first concrete decision in this bishop versus pawns position?
Answer cue: Bishop versus Pawns: compare the fixed pawn color with the bishop's useful diagonals before exchanging. Candidate line: Bd3. The first candidate to test is Bd3. Replay Bd3 on board anchor 7k/5p2/4b3/5B2/8/5K2/8/8 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-3: same-color bishop ending
Show answer
Bishop versus Pawns: compare the fixed pawn color with the bishop's useful diagonals before exchanging. Candidate line: Bf5.
Why this position is here: Bishop versus Pawns is represented by same-color bishop ending. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 6k1/5p2/8/8/8/8/b1BK4/8; no opening history is inferred from the diagram.
FEN: 6k1/5p2/8/8/8/8/b1BK4/8 w - - 6 4
Question: What is the first concrete decision in this bishop versus pawns position?
Answer cue: Bishop versus Pawns: compare the fixed pawn color with the bishop's useful diagonals before exchanging. Candidate line: Bf5. The first candidate to test is Bf5. Replay Bf5 on board anchor 6k1/5p2/8/8/8/8/b1BK4/8 and write down what changes after it.
Evidence boundary: No tablebase outcome is asserted by this generated record; verify the exact FEN before publication.
Reading the line
Read the first example (id example-1) as a complete record: continuation Bd3, source tablebase. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 7k/5p2/8/8/2b5/5K2/2B5/8; 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 Bd3, source tablebase. Its feature is same-color bishop ending; inventory side White; pieces Black king h8, Black pawn f7, Black bishop e6, White bishop f5, White king f3; legal first moves Bxe6, Bg6, Bh7, Bg4, Bh3, Be4, Bd3, Bc2. Compare what changes between Bd3 and Bd3.
Boundary cases
The main mistake to avoid with Bishop versus Pawns 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 | r3:8 | r4:8 | r5:2b5 | r6:5K2 | r7:2B5 | r8:8 after Bd3; in B, test it against r1:7k | r2:5p2 | r3:4b3 | r4:5B2 | r5:8 | r6:5K2 | r7:8 | r8:8 after Bd3.
For Bishop versus Pawns, the first board's evidence boundary (after Bd3) 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 Pawns 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 the side-to-move tempo, 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 | r3:8 | r4:8 | r5:2b5 | r6:5K2 | r7:2B5 | r8:8; record two candidates, the reply to Bd3 and the correction. Repeat with B's side to move and r1:7k | r2:5p2 | r3:4b3 | r4:5B2 | r5:8 | r6:5K2 | r7:8 | r8:8; the changed board tests transfer rather than diagram memory.
After the drill, compare your notes with Knight Endgame Outpost, Two Bishops Versus Bishop, Bishop Pair Endgames through the defender's fortress setup. Keep A's rejected alternative beside B's chosen line Bd3; this shows whether the conclusion survived a new board signature.
Sources and scope
Sources for Bishop versus Pawns: 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 | r3:8 | r4:8 | r5:2b5 | r6:5K2 | r7:2B5 | r8:8 / r1:7k | r2:5p2 | r3:4b3 | r4:5B2 | r5:8 | r6:5K2 | r7:8 | r8:8: this page does not claim that 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 pawn's promotion square.