15828 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Created on December 12, 2011 |
7922 Votes | 57 Comments
Ben-Oni: It's true! http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1533865
Forgot where I had read this but supposedly, a GM went into a B/N vs. K "basic" mate and couldn't do it. It was rather humiliating for him because it is said that most other GMs could do this mate blindfolded.
I can do B+B but not B+N
Fundamental Chess Endings contains an amusing statistic: in the 1.7 million-game ChessBase Mega 2001 database, of the 283 games that resulted in B+N vs. lone king, 62 of them ended in draws. Doh!
B+B easy, B+N tricky . Challenge is with time pressure( Under a minute no icrement)
A B+K mate is an exquisite form of hunting but the wrong move and it's a draw.
Easier said [or answered] than done! (at least amongst beginners along with perhaps some 'intermediate-level' players) - and assuming of course, that both bishops are on opposite-coloured squares (otherwise, an extremely rare-occurring draw [usually by stalemate or mutual agreement] will inevitably result [i.e. should both bishops be of matching coloured squares]).
I would like to think that these types of mating examples are 'elementary' [in theory], but contrary to the opinion of most masters, the rarity of such occurrences that often unfold within tournament-type events are more likely to produce draws rather than wins, despite the theory associated under the constraints of psychological/time pressure involvement.
Nonetheless [given sufficient clock time], the endgame mating scenario: K + [K-]B + [Q-]B vs K should not pose much more difficulty (for an 'A-class' player [1800+ elo]; at most, mate in 19) than the example: K + R vs K (at most, mate in 16). On the other hand: K + B + N vs K is a much more difficult mating scenario (even for some 'master-level' players; at most, mate in 33) that only all too often produces unwanted draw results, dependent on [any] tournament-type [time control/directorial, etc.] circumstantial limitations/influences.
Coincidentally - just to fulfill the satisfaction for any doubt towards the inquiring mind[!] - the endgame: K + N + N vs K should inevitably lead to a draw result [through either of several means, including via time control] with best play, and although mate is in fact 'theoretically' [albeit, remotely] possible (say[?], unless your opponent foolishly blunders), it is by no means scientifically enforceable.
And lastly - for those curiosity seekers - perhaps the most demanding of all 'mating[?]' examples [for either side, for that matter - in the attempt] to prove: K + N + N vs K + P is again, remotely possible [often, but not solely limited to the dependency] upon the relative establishment of what is known as the 'Troitzky line' - a theme based upon the positional advancement of the opposing enemy pawn which consequently, must not only be [temporarily] blockaded by a knight, but which must not as well be captured (otherwise [concurs], the endgame e.g. above: K + N + N vs K [should] = draw result). The brilliant 'idea[?]' (laid out by the late [GM?] Alexei Troitzky [1866-1942]) - to eventually 'squeeze' (a type of one-sided zugzwang) one's opponent [via a prepared pseudo- or anti-'stalemating' recourse] through forcibly freeing the advance of the blockaded pawn [at the precise moment; i.e. to deliver mate with the blockading knight] - is virtually chaotic chess 'purity' in one of the game's most finest hours. Theory aside, but more often than not, the game usually concludes with an agreed draw. Certainly not for the average 'club-level' player, nor even for most grandmasters.
Finally, to actually attempt to answer this query - although I myself (and certainly no 'master') in my many thousands of games have never once [except for an approachable few 'close encounters'] experienced the opportunity to deliver the above 'elementary' mating examples [in both 'OTB'- and 'online'-type games], but did have their [very few occasional] occurrences delivered towards me [with mixed results] - given a sufficient allotment of time, I'd be reluctant not to fear the 'element of truth', at least with the scenario: K + B + N vs K, even though I already know the general gist [for both] of the above mating sequence[s] (first objective [in either case]: forcing the lone enemy king to a [matching coloured] corner square [if with B + N, respective to the colour of the opposing bishop), despite all the known [and proven] theory behind it. So it is perhaps for 'that' (the relative rarity of its occurrence, not only in a chess player's career, but of the practicality of proving the win in actual tournament-level [consequential] play) sole reason only, 'why' I've not only never thoroughly studied it, but would rather simply (perhaps remain somewhat fearful[?] for it) just keep 'it' under 'check'.
And that's the way 'I' see it! ...
KARAFLOF, please explain how you could "mate your opponent when you both have a bishop and the king... but the opponnent's king must be at the corner(draw when you play with someone with IQ over 5)"
Yeh in a time controlled game BK is not so easy. Take some thinking..
BB mate under 1 minute thinking time, BK would take some thinking. With over 2 minutes left for the oponent and a "normal" looking start position I would resign.
I say a big Amen to Hnisby's comment. Spend your time with P+K vs K knowing when you have a draw vs a win; then add pawns to this position. And the R endings, against all type of material patterns, should keep most of us challenged for the duration of time.
that's easy stuff
I picked up the #1 hehehe B+K it is a draw 4 sure, anybody that has played live here would know it.
Here is Youtube video of B+K CM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOY_OlTpPps
I've been playing chess for over 4 years. I don't think I've ever had to actually perform either of these mates before. O_o.
So, yeah... I'm pretty rusty with 'em. But now I am going to relearn them!
I had B+N 3 times in 314 games. I drew all 3.
Bishop + Bishop easy, Bishop + Knight not worth it.
I never found B+B to be too hard. The one time I had to do B+N I succeeded, but I fear a wouldn't have against a stronger opponent.
Bishop and Knight was Capablanca's favourite ending.
3 days ago
4 weeks ago
6 weeks ago
7 weeks ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!