Is this situation ever likely to occur (excluding when you have 2 knights & a pawn and want to show off)?
N+N+K vs N+K
We have two options:
-Black knight betrays his king and joins the white army.
-Black knight undergoes plastic surgery ala Mickel Jackson
Result:
N+N+N+K vs K
No, I agree with what a previous poster said. A situation where promoting to a queen makes a N + N + Q vs. Q draw (or very, very difficult win) but promoting to a knight makes an easy N + N + N vs.King ending.
Here's an example I think is interesting because the two knights win against the king and pawn even though the pawn is well beyond the Troitsky line. If you want to see the winning moves, give the position to the online 6-man tablebases.
White to play and win.
I don't think that has a "winning move". I guess there's a fastest mate, but almost every move wins. Here's an example of how to win:
I don't think that has a "winning move". I guess there's a fastest mate, but almost every move wins.
Do us a favor and post a forced win with any first move besides Kc3.
Holy crap, I just happened to find the fastest mate possible?!? (Of course I assumed Kc1 was a better try than Ka2, which the tablebase reveals is incorrect). Yep, you're right, there's only one winning move but also I'm a genius. The solution was so easy to find I assumed there were more.
Yep, you're right, there's only one winning move but also I'm a genius.
Your comment just made me wonder how carefully you thought about the position before posting your claim that "almost every move wins".
My logic was "Two knights + king and pawn is a win." It would be a like if you showed a position with a king and queen vs. queen and asked me what the winning move is. I would go "What? Any move that doesn't give away the queen wins, it's simply a matter of how long."
I didn't realize that were two knights vs. King and pawn positions that were drawn.
My logic was "Two knights + king and pawn is a win."
Perhaps you once learned the rule, "Two knights vs. king and pawn is a win, provided the pawn has not passed the Troitsky line and is securely blocked by a knight", and later forgot about the provision.
Very interesting question. As someone has already demonstated the answer is yes.
I'm trying to imagine a scenario in a real game where the ending is 3 knights against a king. The idea I have is one player has a pawn and 2 knights while the opponent has one queen. When the pawn gets to the last rank it would better to convert to a knight if that meant a knight fork could capture the queen. The result is 3 knights against a king which wins.
Not likely to happen but it's possible.
In Teach Yourself Chess, the author Gerald Abrahams mentioned that there had been a famous win, King and three Knights against King and one Knight. He didn't explain further or even mention who played it.
Presumably there was a K+N+N+P vs K+N ending where the stronger side had to promote or lose the pawn, and had to promote to Knight to avoid a fork. From then on there's no chance for the stronger side to win the Knight by a fork, but it seems that the defender must either have had to sac his Knight to delay mate or else the stronger side could win even with the single Knight still on the board.
For anyone who's interested, here's an example of the longest mate for king and three knights vs. king and knight.
White to play and mate in 90.
the fact that white is forced to promoted into knight, not for humiliating or sth, thanks for sharing
yes: but why bother?
Thank you Wayne Thomas for educating me. (1) K+N+N+N vs K+N is a win. (2) It actually came up in a serious game.
And there we have it: KNNN can beat KN without the defender giving up his Knight.
Thank you Wayne Thomas for educating me. (1) K+N+N+N vs K+N is a win. (2) It actually came up in a serious game.
To put it more precisely, K+N+N+N vs K+N is a win in general, although there are plenty of drawn positions.
Is this situation ever likely to occur (excluding when you have 2 knights & a pawn and want to show off)?