Quick answer
Two Bishops versus Bishop is an endgame technique: same-color bishop ending. Work from the first evidence position for Two Bishops versus Bishop, and begin by testing Bf5.
Begin from Bf5 in 7k/5p2/4b3/8/8/4K3/2B5/8 b - - 1 1. Count the material, king routes, promotion squares and reserve tempi before applying a theoretical rule. The evidence answer is: Two Bishops versus Bishop: compare the fixed pawn color with the bishop's useful diagonals before exchanging. Candidate line: Bf5 Bd3.
In the Two Bishops versus Bishop example, notice: side Black; pieces Black king h8, Black pawn f7, Black bishop e6, White king e3, White bishop c2; legal first moves Kg7, Kg8, f6, f5, Bd7, Bc8, Bf5, Bg4. 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 same-color bishop ending; the second board tests same-color bishop ending. Sequence A is direct FEN setup. Sequence B is direct FEN setup. Compare them only after setting both FENs. Hub vocabulary: Chess Wiki · Endgames hub. Then compare Material Values with Bishop Versus Pawns, Bishop Pair Endgames, Queen Endgame Perpetual Check around checking distance behind the passer.
The two inventories make the distinction concrete. A contains side Black; pieces Black king h8, Black pawn f7, Black bishop e6, White king e3, White bishop c2; legal first moves Kg7, Kg8, f6, f5, Bd7, Bc8, Bf5, Bg4; B contains side Black; pieces Black pawn f7, Black king h7, Black bishop e6, White bishop a4, White king e4; legal first moves f6, f5+, Kg8, Kh8, Kh6, Kg6, Kg7, Bd7. 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 r1:7k | r2:5p2 | r3:4b3 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:4K3 | r7:2B5 | r8:8 / r1:8 | r2:5p1k | r3:4b3 | r4:8 | r5:B3K3 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:8: 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 Bf5 Bd3 after Bf5 and write down the opponent's best reply around checking distance behind the passer. On the second board, calculate Bf5+ after Bf5+ 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: Two Bishops versus Bishop is illustrated here by same-color bishop ending; the first concrete test is Bf5. The board anchor is 7k/5p2/4b3/8/8/4K3/2B5/8; 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 two bishops versus bishop, and how should each side play them?”, compare the recorded setup with Bf5+ and the opponent's reply. The decision is useful only when the stated condition survives that concrete test on board 8/5p1k/4b3/8/B3K3/8/8/8. 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 | r2:5p1k | r3:4b3 | r4:8 | r5:B3K3 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:8. 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: same-color bishop ending
Show answer
Two Bishops versus Bishop: compare the fixed pawn color with the bishop's useful diagonals before exchanging. Candidate line: Bf5 Bd3.
Why this position is here: Two Bishops versus Bishop is represented by same-color bishop ending. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 7k/5p2/4b3/8/8/4K3/2B5/8; no opening history is inferred from the diagram.
FEN: 7k/5p2/4b3/8/8/4K3/2B5/8 b - - 1 1
Question: What is the first concrete decision in this two bishops versus bishop position?
Answer cue: Two Bishops versus Bishop: compare the fixed pawn color with the bishop's useful diagonals before exchanging. Candidate line: Bf5 Bd3. The first candidate to test is Bf5. Replay Bf5 Bd3 on board anchor 7k/5p2/4b3/8/8/4K3/2B5/8 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
Two Bishops versus Bishop: compare the fixed pawn color with the bishop's useful diagonals before exchanging. Candidate line: Bf5+.
Why this position is here: Two Bishops versus Bishop is represented by same-color bishop ending. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 8/5p1k/4b3/8/B3K3/8/8/8; no opening history is inferred from the diagram.
FEN: 8/5p1k/4b3/8/B3K3/8/8/8 b - - 3 2
Question: What is the first concrete decision in this two bishops versus bishop position?
Answer cue: Two Bishops versus Bishop: 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 8/5p1k/4b3/8/B3K3/8/8/8 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: same-color bishop ending
Show answer
Two Bishops versus Bishop: compare the fixed pawn color with the bishop's useful diagonals before exchanging. Candidate line: Bf5.
Why this position is here: Two Bishops versus Bishop is represented by same-color bishop ending. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 7k/5p2/4b3/3B4/3K4/8/8/8; no opening history is inferred from the diagram.
FEN: 7k/5p2/4b3/3B4/3K4/8/8/8 b - - 5 3
Question: What is the first concrete decision in this two bishops versus bishop position?
Answer cue: Two Bishops versus Bishop: 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 7k/5p2/4b3/3B4/3K4/8/8/8 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 Bf5 Bd3, source tablebase. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 7k/5p2/4b3/8/8/4K3/2B5/8; 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 Bf5+, source tablebase. Its feature is same-color bishop ending; inventory side Black; pieces Black pawn f7, Black king h7, Black bishop e6, White bishop a4, White king e4; legal first moves f6, f5+, Kg8, Kh8, Kh6, Kg6, Kg7, Bd7. Compare what changes between Bf5 and Bf5+.
Boundary cases
The main mistake to avoid with Two Bishops versus Bishop 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 | r3:4b3 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:4K3 | r7:2B5 | r8:8 after Bf5; in B, test it against r1:8 | r2:5p1k | r3:4b3 | r4:8 | r5:B3K3 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:8 after Bf5+.
For Two Bishops versus Bishop, the first board's evidence boundary (after Bf5) is No tablebase outcome is asserted by this generated record; verify the exact FEN before publication. The second board's evidence boundary for Two Bishops versus Bishop 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 r1:7k | r2:5p2 | r3:4b3 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:4K3 | r7:2B5 | r8:8; record two candidates, the reply to Bf5 Bd3 and the correction. Repeat with B's side to move and r1:8 | r2:5p1k | r3:4b3 | r4:8 | r5:B3K3 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:8; the changed board tests transfer rather than diagram memory.
After the drill, compare your notes with Bishop Versus Pawns, Bishop Pair Endgames, Queen Endgame Perpetual Check through a theoretical draw with practical tests. Keep A's rejected alternative beside B's chosen line Bf5+; this shows whether the conclusion survived a new board signature.
Sources and scope
Sources for Two Bishops versus Bishop: 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 | r3:4b3 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:4K3 | r7:2B5 | r8:8 / r1:8 | r2:5p1k | r3:4b3 | r4:8 | r5:B3K3 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:8: this page does not claim that Bf5 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 a stalemate resource.