Quick answer
Queen Endgame Perpetual Check is an endgame technique: queen against rook coordination. Work from the first evidence position for Queen Endgame Perpetual Check, and begin by testing Rg7.
Begin from Rg7 in 6rk/8/8/7K/8/8/2Q5/8 b - - 3 2. Count the material, king routes, promotion squares and reserve tempi before applying a theoretical rule. The evidence answer is: Queen Endgame Perpetual Check: use checks and king safety to separate the rook from the defending king. Candidate line: Rg7.
In the Queen Endgame Perpetual Check example, notice: side Black; pieces Black rook g8, Black king h8, White king h5, White queen c2; legal first moves Rg7, Rg6, Rg5+, Rg4, Rg3, Rg2, Rg1, Rf8. 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 queen against rook coordination; the second board tests queen against rook coordination. For the pair of examples, install A from direct FEN setup and install B from direct FEN setup. For glossary entries nearby, open the Chess Wiki plus the Endgames hub. Then compare Material Values with Bishop Pair Endgames, Queen Endgame Checking Technique, Rook Versus Minor Piece around the king's route around a pawn chain.
The two inventories make the distinction concrete. A contains side Black; pieces Black rook g8, Black king h8, White king h5, White queen c2; legal first moves Rg7, Rg6, Rg5+, Rg4, Rg3, Rg2, Rg1, Rf8; B contains side White; pieces Black king g7, Black rook e6, White king f5, White queen h5; legal first moves Kxe6, Kg5, Kg4, Kf4, Qg6+, Qf7+, Qe8, Qh6+. 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 r1:6rk | r2:8 | r3:8 | r4:7K | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:2Q5 | r8:8 / r1:8 | r2:6k1 | r3:4r3 | r4:5K1Q | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:8: 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 Rg7 after Rg7 and write down the opponent's best reply around the king's route around a pawn chain. On the second board, calculate Kxe6 after Kxe6 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: Queen Endgame Perpetual Check is illustrated here by queen against rook coordination; the first concrete test is Rg7. The board anchor is 6rk/8/8/7K/8/8/2Q5/8; 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 queen endgame perpetual check, and how should each side play them?”, compare the recorded setup with Kxe6 and the opponent's reply. The decision is useful only when the stated condition survives that concrete test on board 8/6k1/4r3/5K1Q/8/8/8/8. The evidence records No tablebase outcome is asserted by this generated record; verify the exact FEN before publication and the second board signature r1:8 | r2:6k1 | r3:4r3 | r4:5K1Q | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:8. 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: queen against rook coordination
Show answer
Queen Endgame Perpetual Check: use checks and king safety to separate the rook from the defending king. Candidate line: Rg7.
Why this position is here: Queen Endgame Perpetual Check is represented by queen against rook coordination. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 6rk/8/8/7K/8/8/2Q5/8; no opening history is inferred from the diagram.
FEN: 6rk/8/8/7K/8/8/2Q5/8 b - - 3 2
Question: What is the first concrete decision in this queen endgame perpetual check position?
Answer cue: Queen Endgame Perpetual Check: use checks and king safety to separate the rook from the defending king. Candidate line: Rg7. The first candidate to test is Rg7. Replay Rg7 on board anchor 6rk/8/8/7K/8/8/2Q5/8 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: queen against rook coordination
Show answer
Queen Endgame Perpetual Check: use checks and king safety to separate the rook from the defending king. Candidate line: Kxe6.
Why this position is here: Queen Endgame Perpetual Check is represented by queen against rook coordination. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 8/6k1/4r3/5K1Q/8/8/8/8; no opening history is inferred from the diagram.
FEN: 8/6k1/4r3/5K1Q/8/8/8/8 w - - 6 4
Question: What is the first concrete decision in this queen endgame perpetual check position?
Answer cue: Queen Endgame Perpetual Check: use checks and king safety to separate the rook from the defending king. Candidate line: Kxe6. The first candidate to test is Kxe6. Replay Kxe6 on board anchor 8/6k1/4r3/5K1Q/8/8/8/8 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: queen against rook coordination
Show answer
Queen Endgame Perpetual Check: use checks and king safety to separate the rook from the defending king. Candidate line: Rf8+.
Why this position is here: Queen Endgame Perpetual Check is represented by queen against rook coordination. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 3Q2rk/8/8/5K2/8/8/8/8; no opening history is inferred from the diagram.
FEN: 3Q2rk/8/8/5K2/8/8/8/8 b - - 3 2
Question: What is the first concrete decision in this queen endgame perpetual check position?
Answer cue: Queen Endgame Perpetual Check: use checks and king safety to separate the rook from the defending king. Candidate line: Rf8+. The first candidate to test is Rf8+. Replay Rf8+ on board anchor 3Q2rk/8/8/5K2/8/8/8/8 and write down what changes after it.
Evidence boundary: No tablebase outcome is asserted by this generated record; verify the exact FEN before publication.
Reading the line
Read the first example (id example-1) as a complete record: continuation Rg7, source tablebase. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 6rk/8/8/7K/8/8/2Q5/8; no opening history is inferred from the diagram. If A does not expose queen against rook coordination, correct the evidence before relying on the prose.
Read the second example (id example-2) separately: continuation Kxe6, source tablebase. Its feature is queen against rook coordination; inventory side White; pieces Black king g7, Black rook e6, White king f5, White queen h5; legal first moves Kxe6, Kg5, Kg4, Kf4, Qg6+, Qf7+, Qe8, Qh6+. Compare what changes between Rg7 and Kxe6.
Boundary cases
The main mistake to avoid with Queen Endgame Perpetual Check 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 r1:6rk | r2:8 | r3:8 | r4:7K | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:2Q5 | r8:8 after Rg7; in B, test it against r1:8 | r2:6k1 | r3:4r3 | r4:5K1Q | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:8 after Kxe6.
For Queen Endgame Perpetual Check, the first board's evidence boundary (after Rg7) is No tablebase outcome is asserted by this generated record; verify the exact FEN before publication. The second board's evidence boundary for Queen Endgame Perpetual Check 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 r1:6rk | r2:8 | r3:8 | r4:7K | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:2Q5 | r8:8; record two candidates, the reply to Rg7 and the correction. Repeat with B's side to move and r1:8 | r2:6k1 | r3:4r3 | r4:5K1Q | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:8; the changed board tests transfer rather than diagram memory.
After the drill, compare your notes with Bishop Pair Endgames, Queen Endgame Checking Technique, Rook Versus Minor Piece through the moment to trade the last pawn. Keep A's rejected alternative beside B's chosen line Kxe6; this shows whether the conclusion survived a new board signature.
Sources and scope
Sources for Queen Endgame Perpetual Check: 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 r1:6rk | r2:8 | r3:8 | r4:7K | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:2Q5 | r8:8 / r1:8 | r2:6k1 | r3:4r3 | r4:5K1Q | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:8: this page does not claim that Rg7 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.