This mate wont really work on more experienced chess players in two moves but it worked for me. The two free bishops can be tempting.

Easy. What if the king moves to kh1 instead?

It would take a couple more moves to checkmate, thats why i said it won't work on more expreinced people.

---

You got to demonstrate with an analysis your statement about "It would take a couple more moves to checkmate".  When you create a puzzle you, as the author, are obligated to demonstrate with an analysis the mate you claim. Thus if you say mate in a couple more moves you are obligated to show everyone how that "couple more moves to mate" is accomplished.

If you want to be a better player you need to learn how to analyse.  That is why creating a puzzle enables the author to see if his analysis is fool proof.  for example, in an actual game, when you calculate a mate in 3 you better be correct in your analysis because once you embark on a sacrifice that does not result in a mate in 3 you could  end up  losing instead of winning the game.

---

M786, there are a few problems with your analysis. On the main line you show, there's no need to bring the Knight into play; you have a mate Qxp#(g2) on black's move 41. Plus, the bishop check on one of your other lines would be met by 41. QxB.

Still not a bad puzzle - the Bf1 bishop move is not obvious, and does put some pressure on the white king.

And I think there's a forced mate in four. 38. . .Bf2+ 39. Kh1 Qc1+ 40. Kh2 Qg1+ 41. Kh3 Qh1#

Whoops, 39. Kh2 stops that . . .

What's stopping white from playing Qh3 or Qf3 at anytime during that sequence?

@ randon-d and daxelson:

My mistake, nothing wrong with qh3, and thats why you need to bring in the knight to checkmate.

Oh nice one, didn't exactly see that.

whites response to bf1 is kh2. it delays the inevitable due to blacks preponderance in material.