Quick answer
Defending a Pawn Down is an endgame technique: king-and-pawn geometry. Work from the first evidence position for Defending a Pawn Down, and begin by testing Kd7.
Begin from Kd7 in 8/8/4k3/8/3P4/1K6/8/8 b - - 3 2. Count the material, king routes, promotion squares and reserve tempi before applying a theoretical rule. The evidence answer is: Defending a Pawn Down: count the king moves, the pawn's promotion square and the reserve tempo before pushing. Candidate line: Kd7.
In the Defending a Pawn Down example, notice: side Black; pieces Black king e6, White pawn d4, White king b3; legal first moves Kd7, Ke7, Kf7, Kf6, Kf5, Kd5, Kd6. Keep the piece census tied to this diagram—other positions with the same theme can look completely different.
Material and result question
The first evidence board tests king-and-pawn geometry; the second board tests king-and-pawn geometry. For the pair of examples, install A from direct FEN setup and install B from direct FEN setup. The Chess Wiki and the Endgames hub collect the shared vocabulary. Then compare Material Values with Converting An Extra Pawn, Exchanging Into A Won Endgame, Opposite Side King Activity around the king's route around a pawn chain.
The two inventories make the distinction concrete. A contains side Black; pieces Black king e6, White pawn d4, White king b3; legal first moves Kd7, Ke7, Kf7, Kf6, Kf5, Kd5, Kd6; B contains side White; pieces Black king c4, White pawn d4, White king c1; legal first moves d5, Kb2, Kc2, Kd2, Kd1, Kb1. Compare the side to move before comparing the labels in the context of king opposition on the critical file.
Topic dossier for this page and board pair r1:8 | r2:8 | r3:4k3 | r4:8 | r5:3P4 | r6:1K6 | r7:8 | r8:8 / r1:8 | r2:8 | r3:8 | r4:8 | r5:2kP4 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:2K5: start with the king's route around a pawn chain; then test king opposition on the critical file; keep a knight route that changes the blockade separate from the moment to trade the last pawn; use a stalemate resource as the transfer check; and reserve a theoretical draw with practical tests for the exception.
Conversion or defense plan
On the first board, calculate Kd7 after Kd7 and write down the opponent's best reply around the king's route around a pawn chain. On the second board, calculate d5 after d5 and check king opposition on the critical file. 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 theoretical draw with practical tests.
Key claim: Defending a Pawn Down is illustrated here by king-and-pawn geometry; the first concrete test is Kd7. The board anchor is 8/8/4k3/8/3P4/1K6/8/8; 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 defending a pawn down, and how should each side play them?”, compare the recorded setup with d5 and the opponent's reply. The decision is useful only when the stated condition survives that concrete test on board 8/8/8/8/2kP4/8/8/2K5. The evidence records No tablebase outcome is asserted by this generated record; verify the exact FEN before publication and the second board signature r1:8 | r2:8 | r3:8 | r4:8 | r5:2kP4 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:2K5. The false-positive test is whether a knight route that changes the blockade appears without the moment to trade the last pawn, so the conclusion is useful only when the stated condition survives that concrete test.
Evidence positions
example-1: king-and-pawn geometry
Show answer
Defending a Pawn Down: count the king moves, the pawn's promotion square and the reserve tempo before pushing. Candidate line: Kd7.
Why this position is here: Defending a Pawn Down is represented by king-and-pawn geometry. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 8/8/4k3/8/3P4/1K6/8/8; no opening history is inferred from the diagram.
FEN: 8/8/4k3/8/3P4/1K6/8/8 b - - 3 2
Question: What is the first concrete decision in this defending a pawn down position?
Answer cue: Defending a Pawn Down: count the king moves, the pawn's promotion square and the reserve tempo before pushing. Candidate line: Kd7. The first candidate to test is Kd7. Replay Kd7 on board anchor 8/8/4k3/8/3P4/1K6/8/8 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-2: king-and-pawn geometry
Show answer
Defending a Pawn Down: count the king moves, the pawn's promotion square and the reserve tempo before pushing. Candidate line: d5.
Why this position is here: Defending a Pawn Down is represented by king-and-pawn geometry. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 8/8/8/8/2kP4/8/8/2K5; no opening history is inferred from the diagram.
FEN: 8/8/8/8/2kP4/8/8/2K5 w - - 6 4
Question: What is the first concrete decision in this defending a pawn down position?
Answer cue: Defending a Pawn Down: count the king moves, the pawn's promotion square and the reserve tempo before pushing. Candidate line: d5. The first candidate to test is d5. Replay d5 on board anchor 8/8/8/8/2kP4/8/8/2K5 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: king-and-pawn geometry
Show answer
Defending a Pawn Down: count the king moves, the pawn's promotion square and the reserve tempo before pushing. Candidate line: Kb7.
Why this position is here: Defending a Pawn Down is represented by king-and-pawn geometry. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 8/8/2k5/8/3P4/8/2K5/8; no opening history is inferred from the diagram.
FEN: 8/8/2k5/8/3P4/8/2K5/8 b - - 3 2
Question: What is the first concrete decision in this defending a pawn down position?
Answer cue: Defending a Pawn Down: count the king moves, the pawn's promotion square and the reserve tempo before pushing. Candidate line: Kb7. The first candidate to test is Kb7. Replay Kb7 on board anchor 8/8/2k5/8/3P4/8/2K5/8 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 Kd7, source tablebase. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 8/8/4k3/8/3P4/1K6/8/8; no opening history is inferred from the diagram. If A does not expose king-and-pawn geometry, correct the evidence before relying on the prose.
Read the second example (id example-2) separately: continuation d5, source tablebase. Its feature is king-and-pawn geometry; inventory side White; pieces Black king c4, White pawn d4, White king c1; legal first moves d5, Kb2, Kc2, Kd2, Kd1, Kb1. Compare what changes between Kd7 and d5.
Boundary cases
The main mistake to avoid with Defending a Pawn Down 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 r1:8 | r2:8 | r3:4k3 | r4:8 | r5:3P4 | r6:1K6 | r7:8 | r8:8 after Kd7; in B, test it against r1:8 | r2:8 | r3:8 | r4:8 | r5:2kP4 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:2K5 after d5.
For Defending a Pawn Down, the first board's evidence boundary (after Kd7) is No tablebase outcome is asserted by this generated record; verify the exact FEN before publication. The second board's evidence boundary for Defending a Pawn Down 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 stalemate resource, 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 r1:8 | r2:8 | r3:4k3 | r4:8 | r5:3P4 | r6:1K6 | r7:8 | r8:8; record two candidates, the reply to Kd7 and the correction. Repeat with B's side to move and r1:8 | r2:8 | r3:8 | r4:8 | r5:2kP4 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:2K5; the changed board tests transfer rather than diagram memory.
After the drill, compare your notes with Converting An Extra Pawn, Exchanging Into A Won Endgame, Opposite Side King Activity through the moment to trade the last pawn. Keep A's rejected alternative beside B's chosen line d5; this shows whether the conclusion survived a new board signature.
Sources and scope
Sources for Defending a Pawn Down: 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 r1:8 | r2:8 | r3:4k3 | r4:8 | r5:3P4 | r6:1K6 | r7:8 | r8:8 / r1:8 | r2:8 | r3:8 | r4:8 | r5:2kP4 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:2K5: this page does not claim that Kd7 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 a knight route that changes the blockade.