Strongest players here that don't know basic checkmates

GM_Kenny_Ji

Who's the strongest player here who don't know the queen, rook, 2 bishops, or bishop+knight checkmate? I'm 1515 rapid and just learned the queen checkmate but doesn't know the 2 bishops mate. 

dorukemir

Oh those are easy. happy.png

sirtobyG

I don't know know my rating - just play for fun. As to your question - I can't mate with Knight+Bishop, but manage every other piece mate. (provided my opponent has only the naked King)

WeylTransform

The queen/rook checkmate is, by far, perhaps the most intuitive checkmating pattern, and can readily be learnt by players of all ratings. If a player does not know how to checkmate with a queen and king or rook and king, then they are indubitably doomed for endgame, upon participating against players of similar ratings. After all, if such a player has a magnificent opening repertoire and wonderful middle game tactics and strategy yet doesn't know this checkmate, then they would blatantly have to settle for a draw (or maybe even resignation). As for the bishop and knight checkmate, it is seldom encountered in chess games, but nonetheless, it is worth learning it to enhance your endgame. The 2 bishops checkmate is something that you should definitely consider learning, because albeit it may not been encountered as frequently as the queen and rook, it will pop up from time to time.

WeylTransform
sirtobyG wrote:

I don't know know my rating - just play for fun. As to your question - I can't mate with Knight+Bishop, but manage every other piece mate. (provided my opponent has only the naked King)

 

Indeed, the essence of chess is mentally stimulate your mind, generally a pleasant experience. Ratings are not to be constantly be obsessed about; they exist to provide a rough estimate of your playing strength. However, they do not very much account for their intended purpose, for I have seen genuinely rated 400 players (in face to face games) playing at the very level of a 2600 rated player. Indeed, my comment may give rise to formidable controversy, and as a further note, they are essentially analogous to the effect that math competitions play in innate mathematical ability. As we know, math competitions are merely indicative of our ability to solve problems in a limited amount of time - with an outside the box thinking approach, indeed, but not much like genuine research mathematics. Research mathematics is far more profound, delving into the intricacies of every single aspect of a given problem or question. For instance, take Shinichi Mochizuki's proof of the abc conjecture. A seemingly simple and somewhat intuitive conjecture, but the proof (I encourage all to search it up, for it will thoroughly give you a sense of what mathematics is really about) is so deep that it would be injustice to describe it in one word. Anyway, I have gone somewhat off topic, unless you can find a way that chess and the proof of the abc conjecture are inextricably connected. Possibly homeomorphisms and isomorphisms, but not necessarily so.

Axorcist

K, N + B vs K is hard. I've know it when I was young, but forgot about it and now I simply can't do it any more. I should be able to win this endgame playing against the computer from the worst possible starting position. Which is, I believe, King, Bishop and knight in the corners and the enemy king in the centre.

 

WeylTransform

Note that perhaps the Putnam math competition and International Math Olympiad are slightly indicative of our mathematical prowess, but additionally it is a testament our ability to work effectively in timed conditions. Needless to say, some IMO medallists are superb in the study of math, the majority of which have gone on to become prolific mathematicians, the most notable of whom is the one and only man of humility Terence Chi Shen Tao. It's all in his name (insert chi squared distribution pun). Anyway, cogito ergo sum.

WeylTransform
Axorcist wrote:

K, N + B vs K is hard. I've know it when I was young, but forgot about it and now I simply can't do it any more. I should be able to win this endgame playing against the computer from the worst possible starting position. Which is, I believe, King, Bishop and knight in the corners and the enemy king in the centre.

 

 

If dubious, you should probably view the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3EqM17jvOc

WeylTransform
GM_Kenny_Ji wrote:

Who's the strongest player here who don't know the queen, rook, 2 bishops, or bishop+knight checkmate? I'm 1515 rapid and just learned the queen checkmate but doesn't know the 2 bishops mate. 

 

Initially, we should rigorously define what you intend to mean by strongest chess player. Do you mean one with the highest USCF ratings, arithmetic mean of bullet, blitz and rapid ratings, competence in tactical awareness or positional thinking strategies? There are a variety of more interpretations, and needless to say, I have suppressed for the sake of getting my message across in a concise manner.

woton

I don't have the reference, but in the last two or three years, I read an article about either a GM or an IM who wasn't able to win a K + B + N vs K endgame.  It's an ending that's overlooked because it doesn't occur very often (I've only played it eight or nine times in the last ten years).  Some endgame books don't include it because the author's consider studying it a waste of time.  Myself, I think it's rather fascinating, and practice it regularly.

Found a reference:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_and_knight_checkmate

RubenHogenhout
Axorcist schreef:

K, N + B vs K is hard. I've know it when I was young, but forgot about it and now I simply can't do it any more. I should be able to win this endgame playing against the computer from the worst possible starting position. Which is, I believe, King, Bishop and knight in the corners and the enemy king in the centre.

 

I am pretty good in it. Ng6 is perfect but Nf7 is also good. Would have been my choise.

I played it against a computer but he does not much problems.

First in this case you bring your knight a bit more to the center to controle squares. In this case on f7 the d6 e5 g5 and h6 squars. Together with the Bishop on b3 it would already give a perfect big cage. To gether with the white king on c3 you allready have the king closed in in the h1 corner. But in this case he walks in te worng corner h8 and I give him checkmate in the other corner with a light square the a8 corner. With use of the w-shape. I let you see how it went. after the Knight move it is good to first bring your king to the center and he may chose to with egde he want to go. It does not matter all are good.

From the egde you drive in in the right corner also form the wrong corner.

 

 

RubenHogenhout

RubenHogenhout

Now I shall explain you this position. As you see the Knight and Bishop together on the same collor one square apart contole many fields The white king is in fact allready trpaed in the h1 corner. The knighty on d3 is also such a position in with the king has no escape.

I(t is not hard to drive the king in the corner from here.

 

blueemu

eric0022
GM_Kenny_Ji wrote:

Who's the strongest player here who don't know the queen, rook, 2 bishops, or bishop+knight checkmate? I'm 1515 rapid and just learned the queen checkmate but doesn't know the 2 bishops mate. 

 

KQ versus KR and KNN vs KP are probably two of the hardest endgames to solve.

 

I am sure there if a handful of players who does not know basic checkmates. I myself probably do not know some of them.

Snejvesda

What is bishop and knight checkmate? I never needed to know, because I hate endgames. Usually I either die before then or my opponent dies before then.

DrSpudnik

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/daily/162639182

Here's one with two bishops.

iamstrongbelieve

hey newbie here .. female, 30 y.o, want to know best strategies to checkmate

SchaakVoorAlles

I agree that ratings are only approximate measure of chess strength but this statement is ridiculous:

"I have seen genuinely rated 400 players (in face to face games) playing at the very level of a 2600 rated player"

No you have not.  The only way a "genuinely" 400 rated player could play anywhere near 2600 strength is by using  a chess engine. Perhaps it was a typo and 2400 is what was meant?  That is believable.

SchaakVoorAlles
Snejvesda wrote:

What is bishop and knight checkmate? I never needed to know, because I hate endgames. Usually I either die before then or my opponent dies before then.

You don't learn to checkmate with K, B & N because you expect the ending to arise in your games. You learn it because of what it teaches you about co-ordinating the pieces and following a multi-stage plan.