Quick answer
Two Rooks versus Rook is an endgame technique: Lucena bridge-building. Work from the first evidence position for Two Rooks versus Rook, and begin by testing Kc5.
Begin from Kc5 in R7/2P3kr/2K5/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 2 2. Count the material, king routes, promotion squares and reserve tempi before applying a theoretical rule. The evidence answer is: Two Rooks versus Rook: use the king's shelter and a checking-distance bridge before advancing the pawn. Candidate line: Kc5.
In the Two Rooks versus Rook example, notice: side White; pieces White rook a8, White pawn c7, Black king g7, Black rook h7, White king c6; legal first moves Rb8, Rc8, Rd8, Re8, Rf8, Rg8+, Rh8, Ra7. 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 Lucena bridge-building; the second board tests Lucena bridge-building. 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 Rook And Bishop Versus Rook, Minor Piece And Pawn Versus Rook, Fortress In Chess Endgames around the side-to-move tempo.
The two inventories make the distinction concrete. A contains side White; pieces White rook a8, White pawn c7, Black king g7, Black rook h7, White king c6; legal first moves Rb8, Rc8, Rd8, Re8, Rf8, Rg8+, Rh8, Ra7; B contains side White; pieces Black king h8, White pawn c7, White king c6, Black rook h2, White rook f1; legal first moves c8=N, c8=B, c8=R+, c8=Q+, Kb7, Kd7, Kd6, Kd5. Compare the side to move before comparing the labels in the context of a reserve pawn move.
Topic dossier for this page and board pair r1:R7 | r2:2P3kr | r3:2K5 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:8 / r1:7k | r2:2P5 | r3:2K5 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:7r | r8:5R2: start with the side-to-move tempo; then test a reserve pawn move; keep the active rook before the pawn push separate from the conversion move order; use an outside passer used as a decoy as the transfer check; and reserve the defender's only active counterplay for the exception.
Conversion or defense plan
On the first board, calculate Kc5 after Kc5 and write down the opponent's best reply around the side-to-move tempo. On the second board, calculate Kc5 after Kc5 and check a reserve pawn move. 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 defender's only active counterplay.
Key claim: Two Rooks versus Rook is illustrated here by Lucena bridge-building; the first concrete test is Kc5. The board anchor is R7/2P3kr/2K5/8/8/8/8/8; 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 two rooks versus rook, and how should each side play them?”, compare the recorded setup with Kc5 and the opponent's reply. The decision is useful only when the stated condition survives that concrete test on board 7k/2P5/2K5/8/8/8/7r/5R2. 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 | r3:2K5 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:7r | r8:5R2. The false-positive test is whether the active rook before the pawn push appears without the conversion move order, so the conclusion is useful only when the stated condition survives that concrete test.
Evidence positions
example-1: Lucena bridge-building
Show answer
Two Rooks versus Rook: use the king's shelter and a checking-distance bridge before advancing the pawn. Candidate line: Kc5.
Why this position is here: Two Rooks versus Rook is represented by Lucena bridge-building. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor R7/2P3kr/2K5/8/8/8/8/8; no opening history is inferred from the diagram.
FEN: R7/2P3kr/2K5/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 2 2
Question: What is the first concrete decision in this two rooks versus rook position?
Answer cue: Two Rooks versus Rook: 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 R7/2P3kr/2K5/8/8/8/8/8 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-2: Lucena bridge-building
Show answer
Two Rooks versus Rook: use the king's shelter and a checking-distance bridge before advancing the pawn. Candidate line: Kc5.
Why this position is here: Two Rooks versus Rook is represented by Lucena bridge-building. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 7k/2P5/2K5/8/8/8/7r/5R2; no opening history is inferred from the diagram.
FEN: 7k/2P5/2K5/8/8/8/7r/5R2 w - - 4 3
Question: What is the first concrete decision in this two rooks versus rook position?
Answer cue: Two Rooks versus Rook: 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 7k/2P5/2K5/8/8/8/7r/5R2 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
Two Rooks versus Rook: use the king's shelter and a checking-distance bridge before advancing the pawn. Candidate line: Ra8.
Why this position is here: Two Rooks versus Rook is represented by Lucena bridge-building. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 2N4k/1K6/8/4r3/8/8/R7/8; no opening history is inferred from the diagram.
FEN: 2N4k/1K6/8/4r3/8/8/R7/8 w - - 1 4
Question: What is the first concrete decision in this two rooks versus rook position?
Answer cue: Two Rooks versus Rook: 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/1K6/8/4r3/8/8/R7/8 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 Kc5, source tablebase. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor R7/2P3kr/2K5/8/8/8/8/8; 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 Kc5, source tablebase. Its feature is Lucena bridge-building; inventory side White; pieces Black king h8, White pawn c7, White king c6, Black rook h2, White rook f1; legal first moves c8=N, c8=B, c8=R+, c8=Q+, Kb7, Kd7, Kd6, Kd5. Compare what changes between Kc5 and Kc5.
Boundary cases
The main mistake to avoid with Two Rooks versus Rook 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:R7 | r2:2P3kr | r3:2K5 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:8 after Kc5; in B, test it against r1:7k | r2:2P5 | r3:2K5 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:7r | r8:5R2 after Kc5.
For Two Rooks versus Rook, 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 Two Rooks versus Rook 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 an outside passer used as a decoy, 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:R7 | r2:2P3kr | r3:2K5 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:8; record two candidates, the reply to Kc5 and the correction. Repeat with B's side to move and r1:7k | r2:2P5 | r3:2K5 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:7r | r8:5R2; the changed board tests transfer rather than diagram memory.
After the drill, compare your notes with Rook And Bishop Versus Rook, Minor Piece And Pawn Versus Rook, Fortress In Chess Endgames through the conversion move order. Keep A's rejected alternative beside B's chosen line Kc5; this shows whether the conclusion survived a new board signature.
Sources and scope
Sources for Two Rooks versus Rook: 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:R7 | r2:2P3kr | r3:2K5 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:8 / r1:7k | r2:2P5 | r3:2K5 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:7r | r8:5R2: 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 active rook before the pawn push.