4/21/2018 - Pogosjants, 1970



ReyRambler1960 wrote:



Currency_Lad wrote:
fightingbob wrote:
Currency_Lad wrote:


I'm a little unclear on what you mean by criss-crossed knights mate I'm afraid.

My (very limited) understanding was that mate couldn't be forced with two knights alone unless the opponent blundered. Unless you are implying the use of another piece (in this case the rook) to box the king in.

Yes, Currency_Lad, unlike Boden's Mate with criss-crossing bishops, criss-crossing knights require a king to control the squares on one side.  You can see this illustrated below.


Take note that this criss-crossing maneuver can not be performed in its purest form with the opponent's king in the corner.

If you want a fascinating theoretical mate, get Alexey Troitsky's book (The Dover Edition lacks this section, and the Ishi Press Edition is like a poor photocopy) and read his thorough exposition of K+2N against K+P.  It makes K+R+2N versus K+R look exceedingly simple.  At one time I was able to execute this mate when the king was near the edge of the board; I doubt I could do it now.

You may find this Wikipedia entry on the two knights endgame interesting.

NOTE: I missed Post #191 until just now.  Oh well.

No worries and thanks Bob.

Yeah, that Wikipedia entry was where I got my very limited understanding. Not that I understood much of it.

As for Troitsky's book, even if I found it, no doubt it would be prohibitively expensive as are all such things here in Oz. Perhaps I could look it up in the State Library if I ever find the time.

Believe me, I appreciate you being so generous with your time. And I know many others do also. Thanks again.

You're welcome, Currency_Lad.

I was tired last night and today find that my sentence "unlike Boden's Mate with criss-crossing bishops, criss-crossing knights require a king to control the squares on one side" is a bit misleading  To be clearer, Boden's Mate also has escape squares on one side, but rather than having those squares "controlled" they are traditionally occupied by the opponent's own pieces, often a rook and a knight.  Another difference is Boden's Mate occurs in the middle game.

Just wanted to clear that up. 


"And thanks for directing me to Qoko's post. Didn't understand it at first because of the typo in his final moves ([5. ...] Rg3+ [sic - should be 5. ... Rg4+] 6. Kf3). Kinda makes my first post that Bob answered redundant."

Fixed, cheers. Hastily and all eh. Good studies tend to fire me up quickly; up to a point where I can just cringe at players suggesting even losing moves (2.h8=Q olol) without properly looking why the alternative may perhaps not be as good.

Can't add much to what you guys said afterwards: many variations I did not include were situations where the tactics repeat or the R+2N vs R occurs.

  • 2.... alternatives lead to RxR with R+2N vs R.
  • 3.... alternatives already have R+2N vs R on the board.
  • 4. alternatives lead to black retaking the rook opposition (ie Rb2 Rb4! etc.

Such a beautiful mind


ahahaha, that was funny! ahaha


Not easy! Very good one.


how are you supposed to think of that!

YaleGriffin wrote:

how are you supposed to think of that!

By reading books on endgame studies and endgame technique in general.  When William Caxton brought printing to England, the second and most popular book he published in English was The Game and Playe of Chesse.  However, it was not instruction in chess but an "allegory of fixed social structures where each rank has its allotted role."  That said, more books have been printed about chess than all the other games combined.  You should be able to find one to help you. wink.png


Jack in the Bob


good one


Very cool and hard!