Quick answer
Rook versus Minor Piece is an endgame technique: Lucena bridge-building. Work from the first evidence position for Rook versus Minor Piece, and begin by testing Kc5.
Begin from Kc5 in 5R2/6k1/2K5/8/8/7r/8/R7 w - - 3 3. Count the material, king routes, promotion squares and reserve tempi before applying a theoretical rule. The evidence answer is: Rook versus Minor Piece: use the king's shelter and a checking-distance bridge before advancing the pawn. Candidate line: Kc5.
In the Rook versus Minor Piece example, notice: side White; pieces White rook f8, Black king g7, White king c6, Black rook h3, White rook a1; legal first moves Rg8+, Rh8, Rf7+, Rf6, Rf5, Rf4, Rf3, Rf2. This material report is evidence for the board shown here, not a checklist for every encounter with the idea.
Material and result question
The first evidence board tests Lucena bridge-building; the second board tests Lucena bridge-building. 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 Queen Endgame Checking Technique, Rook And Bishop Versus Rook, Two Rooks Versus Rook around a theoretical draw with practical tests.
The two inventories make the distinction concrete. A contains side White; pieces White rook f8, Black king g7, White king c6, Black rook h3, White rook a1; legal first moves Rg8+, Rh8, Rf7+, Rf6, Rf5, Rf4, Rf3, Rf2; B contains side Black; pieces Black king h8, White pawn c7, White rook a6, White king b5, Black rook h4; legal first moves Kh7, Kg7, Kg8, Rh5+, Rh6, Rh7, Rh3, Rh2. Compare the side to move before comparing the labels in the context of a stalemate resource.
Topic dossier for this page and board pair r1:5R2 | r2:6k1 | r3:2K5 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:7r | r7:8 | r8:R7 / r1:7k | r2:2P5 | r3:R7 | r4:1K6 | r5:7r | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:8: start with a theoretical draw with practical tests; then test a stalemate resource; keep the bishop's color complex separate from checking distance behind the passer; use king opposition on the critical file as the transfer check; and reserve the king's route around a pawn chain for the exception.
Conversion or defense plan
On the first board, calculate Kc5 after Kc5 and write down the opponent's best reply around a theoretical draw with practical tests. On the second board, calculate Kh7 after Kh7 and check a stalemate resource. 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 king's route around a pawn chain.
Key claim: Rook versus Minor Piece is illustrated here by Lucena bridge-building; the first concrete test is Kc5. The board anchor is 5R2/6k1/2K5/8/8/7r/8/R7; 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 rook versus minor piece, 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 7k/2P5/R7/1K6/7r/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 r1:7k | r2:2P5 | r3:R7 | r4:1K6 | r5:7r | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:8. The false-positive test is whether the bishop's color complex appears without checking distance behind the passer, so the conclusion is useful only when the stated condition survives that concrete test.
Evidence positions
example-1: Lucena bridge-building
Show answer
Rook versus Minor Piece: use the king's shelter and a checking-distance bridge before advancing the pawn. Candidate line: Kc5.
Why this position is here: Rook versus Minor Piece is represented by Lucena bridge-building. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 5R2/6k1/2K5/8/8/7r/8/R7; no opening history is inferred from the diagram.
FEN: 5R2/6k1/2K5/8/8/7r/8/R7 w - - 3 3
Question: What is the first concrete decision in this rook versus minor piece position?
Answer cue: Rook versus Minor Piece: use the king's shelter and a checking-distance bridge before advancing the pawn. Candidate line: Kc5. The first candidate to test is Kc5. Replay Kc5 on board anchor 5R2/6k1/2K5/8/8/7r/8/R7 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: Lucena bridge-building
Show answer
Rook versus Minor Piece: use the king's shelter and a checking-distance bridge before advancing the pawn. Candidate line: Kh7.
Why this position is here: Rook versus Minor Piece is represented by Lucena bridge-building. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 7k/2P5/R7/1K6/7r/8/8/8; no opening history is inferred from the diagram.
FEN: 7k/2P5/R7/1K6/7r/8/8/8 b - - 5 3
Question: What is the first concrete decision in this rook versus minor piece position?
Answer cue: Rook versus Minor Piece: use the king's shelter and a checking-distance bridge before advancing the pawn. Candidate line: Kh7. The first candidate to test is Kh7. Replay Kh7 on board anchor 7k/2P5/R7/1K6/7r/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: Lucena bridge-building
Show answer
Rook versus Minor Piece: use the king's shelter and a checking-distance bridge before advancing the pawn. Candidate line: Ra8.
Why this position is here: Rook versus Minor Piece is represented by Lucena bridge-building. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 2N4k/4r3/2K5/8/8/8/8/R7; no opening history is inferred from the diagram.
FEN: 2N4k/4r3/2K5/8/8/8/8/R7 w - - 1 2
Question: What is the first concrete decision in this rook versus minor piece position?
Answer cue: Rook versus Minor Piece: use the king's shelter and a checking-distance bridge before advancing the pawn. Candidate line: Ra8. The first candidate to test is Ra8. Replay Ra8 on board anchor 2N4k/4r3/2K5/8/8/8/8/R7 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 Kc5, source tablebase. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 5R2/6k1/2K5/8/8/7r/8/R7; no opening history is inferred from the diagram. If A does not expose Lucena bridge-building, correct the evidence before relying on the prose.
Read the second example (id example-2) separately: continuation Kh7, source tablebase. Its feature is Lucena bridge-building; inventory side Black; pieces Black king h8, White pawn c7, White rook a6, White king b5, Black rook h4; legal first moves Kh7, Kg7, Kg8, Rh5+, Rh6, Rh7, Rh3, Rh2. Compare what changes between Kc5 and Kh7.
Boundary cases
The main mistake to avoid with Rook versus Minor Piece 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 r1:5R2 | r2:6k1 | r3:2K5 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:7r | r7:8 | r8:R7 after Kc5; in B, test it against r1:7k | r2:2P5 | r3:R7 | r4:1K6 | r5:7r | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:8 after Kh7.
For Rook versus Minor Piece, the first board's evidence boundary (after Kc5) is No tablebase outcome is asserted by this generated record; verify the exact FEN before publication. The second board's evidence boundary for Rook versus Minor Piece 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 king opposition on the critical file, 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 r1:5R2 | r2:6k1 | r3:2K5 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:7r | r7:8 | r8:R7; record two candidates, the reply to Kc5 and the correction. Repeat with B's side to move and r1:7k | r2:2P5 | r3:R7 | r4:1K6 | r5:7r | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:8; the changed board tests transfer rather than diagram memory.
After the drill, compare your notes with Queen Endgame Checking Technique, Rook And Bishop Versus Rook, Two Rooks Versus Rook through checking distance behind the passer. 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 Rook versus Minor Piece: 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 r1:5R2 | r2:6k1 | r3:2K5 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:7r | r7:8 | r8:R7 / r1:7k | r2:2P5 | r3:R7 | r4:1K6 | r5:7r | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:8: this page does not claim that Kc5 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 bishop's color complex.