Quick answer
Queen versus Pawn is an endgame technique: queen against a promotion threat. Work from the first evidence position for Queen versus Pawn, and begin by testing Kh6.
Begin from Kh6 in 6k1/6P1/6K1/8/8/8/8/3Q4 w - - 1 2. Count the material, king routes, promotion squares and reserve tempi before applying a theoretical rule. The evidence answer is: Queen versus Pawn: check first, then stop the pawn without allowing stalemate or a queen-versus-queen trick. Candidate line: Kh6.
In the Queen versus Pawn example, notice: side White; pieces Black king g8, White pawn g7, White king g6, White queen d1; legal first moves Kh6, Kh5, Kg5, Kf5, Kf6, Qc2, Qb3#, Qa4. Do not export this inventory beyond the present example; it is a local observation, not a doctrine.
Material and result question
The first evidence board tests queen against a promotion threat; the second board tests queen against a promotion threat. Construction note: A = direct FEN setup; B = direct FEN setup. Rebuild each board before comparing labels. For glossary entries nearby, open the Chess Wiki plus the Endgames hub. Then compare Material Values with Four Rook Endgame Principles, Queen Versus Rook, Same Color Bishop Endings around checking distance behind the passer.
The two inventories make the distinction concrete. A contains side White; pieces Black king g8, White pawn g7, White king g6, White queen d1; legal first moves Kh6, Kh5, Kg5, Kf5, Kf6, Qc2, Qb3#, Qa4; B contains side White; pieces Black king e8, White bishop g8, White king h6, White queen d1; legal first moves Bh7, Bf7+, Be6, Bd5, Bc4, Bb3, Ba2, Kg7. Compare the side to move before comparing the labels in the context of the bishop's color complex.
Topic dossier for this page and board pair r1:6k1 | r2:6P1 | r3:6K1 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:3Q4 / r1:4k1B1 | r2:8 | r3:7K | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:3Q4: start with checking distance behind the passer; then test the bishop's color complex; keep a stalemate resource separate from a theoretical draw with practical tests; use a knight route that changes the blockade as the transfer check; and reserve the moment to trade the last pawn for the exception.
Conversion or defense plan
On the first board, calculate Kh6 after Kh6 and write down the opponent's best reply around checking distance behind the passer. On the second board, calculate Kh7 after Kh7 and check the bishop's color complex. 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 moment to trade the last pawn.
Key claim: Queen versus Pawn is illustrated here by queen against a promotion threat; the first concrete test is Kh6. The board anchor is 6k1/6P1/6K1/8/8/8/8/3Q4; 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 versus pawn, and how should each side play them?”, compare the recorded setup with Kh7 and the opponent's reply. The decision is useful only when the stated condition survives that concrete test on board 4k1B1/8/7K/8/8/8/8/3Q4. The evidence records No tablebase outcome is asserted by this generated record; verify the exact FEN before publication and the second board signature r1:4k1B1 | r2:8 | r3:7K | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:3Q4. The false-positive test is whether a stalemate resource appears without a theoretical draw with practical tests, so the conclusion is useful only when the stated condition survives that concrete test.
Evidence positions
example-1: queen against a promotion threat
Show answer
Queen versus Pawn: check first, then stop the pawn without allowing stalemate or a queen-versus-queen trick. Candidate line: Kh6.
Why this position is here: Queen versus Pawn is represented by queen against a promotion threat. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 6k1/6P1/6K1/8/8/8/8/3Q4; no opening history is inferred from the diagram.
FEN: 6k1/6P1/6K1/8/8/8/8/3Q4 w - - 1 2
Question: What is the first concrete decision in this queen versus pawn position?
Answer cue: Queen versus Pawn: check first, then stop the pawn without allowing stalemate or a queen-versus-queen trick. Candidate line: Kh6. The first candidate to test is Kh6. Replay Kh6 on board anchor 6k1/6P1/6K1/8/8/8/8/3Q4 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 a promotion threat
Show answer
Queen versus Pawn: check first, then stop the pawn without allowing stalemate or a queen-versus-queen trick. Candidate line: Kh7.
Why this position is here: Queen versus Pawn is represented by queen against a promotion threat. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 4k1B1/8/7K/8/8/8/8/3Q4; no opening history is inferred from the diagram.
FEN: 4k1B1/8/7K/8/8/8/8/3Q4 w - - 1 4
Question: What is the first concrete decision in this queen versus pawn position?
Answer cue: Queen versus Pawn: check first, then stop the pawn without allowing stalemate or a queen-versus-queen trick. Candidate line: Kh7. The first candidate to test is Kh7. Replay Kh7 on board anchor 4k1B1/8/7K/8/8/8/8/3Q4 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 a promotion threat
Show answer
Queen versus Pawn: check first, then stop the pawn without allowing stalemate or a queen-versus-queen trick. Candidate line: Kg8.
Why this position is here: Queen versus Pawn is represented by queen against a promotion threat. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 8/6Pk/8/6K1/3Q4/8/8/8; no opening history is inferred from the diagram.
FEN: 8/6Pk/8/6K1/3Q4/8/8/8 b - - 4 3
Question: What is the first concrete decision in this queen versus pawn position?
Answer cue: Queen versus Pawn: check first, then stop the pawn without allowing stalemate or a queen-versus-queen trick. Candidate line: Kg8. The first candidate to test is Kg8. Replay Kg8 on board anchor 8/6Pk/8/6K1/3Q4/8/8/8 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 Kh6, source tablebase. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 6k1/6P1/6K1/8/8/8/8/3Q4; no opening history is inferred from the diagram. If A does not expose queen against a promotion threat, correct the evidence before relying on the prose.
Read the second example (id example-2) separately: continuation Kh7, source tablebase. Its feature is queen against a promotion threat; inventory side White; pieces Black king e8, White bishop g8, White king h6, White queen d1; legal first moves Bh7, Bf7+, Be6, Bd5, Bc4, Bb3, Ba2, Kg7. Compare what changes between Kh6 and Kh7.
Boundary cases
The main mistake to avoid with Queen versus Pawn 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 r1:6k1 | r2:6P1 | r3:6K1 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:3Q4 after Kh6; in B, test it against r1:4k1B1 | r2:8 | r3:7K | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:3Q4 after Kh7.
For Queen versus Pawn, the first board's evidence boundary (after Kh6) is No tablebase outcome is asserted by this generated record; verify the exact FEN before publication. The second board's evidence boundary for Queen versus Pawn 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 knight route that changes the blockade, 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 r1:6k1 | r2:6P1 | r3:6K1 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:3Q4; record two candidates, the reply to Kh6 and the correction. Repeat with B's side to move and r1:4k1B1 | r2:8 | r3:7K | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:3Q4; the changed board tests transfer rather than diagram memory.
After the drill, compare your notes with Four Rook Endgame Principles, Queen Versus Rook, Same Color Bishop Endings through a theoretical draw with practical tests. Keep A's rejected alternative beside B's chosen line Kh7; this shows whether the conclusion survived a new board signature.
Sources and scope
Sources for Queen versus Pawn: 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 r1:6k1 | r2:6P1 | r3:6K1 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:3Q4 / r1:4k1B1 | r2:8 | r3:7K | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:3Q4: this page does not claim that Kh6 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 stalemate resource.