Is it possible to checkmate a King with only a King, Bishop and Knight. I would preferably like our GMs like Vishy, Spassky and Magnus Carlson or more of you GMs to help me out on this one. I've got arguments in my zone, its starting to stress me out and make me look bad. Chessmaster has got the solution but itsa more like a puzzle of GM advanced classes.
Yes, it is possible. It's widely regarded as the most difficult mate.
It is considered fundamental knowledge among stronger players.
Not by many it isn't.
IMs and GMs are on occasion baffled otb by the b+n v. k mate.
In that light, can we say that it is truly fundamental knowledge when there are even very strong players don't possess it?
I actually had this come up in a live game with me as the stronger side. I think my opponent went into it on purpose by giving up his last piece for my last pawn. I only had 5-6 minutes left and I couldn't do it, even though I'd recently watched a video on how to do it, too. That draw was more disappointing to me than a loss. I don't know if it'll ever come up again for me, but hopefully I'll be prepared if it does.
@ ChessCrazy22
My, aren't we prickly.
Taken from wikipedia:
Opinions differ as to whether or not a player should learn this checkmate procedure... Jeremy Silman includes the checkmate with two bishops but not the bishop plus knight checkmate because he has had it only once and his friend John Watson has never had it (Silman 2007:33,188). Silman says
"...mastering it would take a significant chunk of time. Should the chess hopeful really spend many of his precious hours he's put aside for chess study learning an endgame he will achieve (at most) only once or twice in his lifetime?"
For some reason ChessCrazy22 was unavailable to have his understanding refined.
Instead of accepting that a definition of the b+n v. k mate as "fundamental" could be talked about, he went off.
It would have been better to just pause to breathe, read carefully, and think before responding.
Awww, someone's feeling a little sensitive. All those mean people on the internet not validating you? Whaddaya want, a hug? Disagreeing is by no means necessarily attacking, you just take it that way, so stop being so insecure. If you can't manage that, please fulfill your above statement and stop subjecting us to your little tantrums.
Btw, I would say there is a huge difference between the world class GMs listed above -- the best players of the game, like Capa -- and "strong players". If you want to get nit-picky about justification then define your terms properly. I saw something on chess.com a few months ago about a reasonably strong GM who was unable carry out this mating pattern and the game ended by stalemate (no, before you ask, I'm not going to go dig it up and post a link, because I don't care -- you can find it yourself if you don't believe me).
I would argue that is mostly irrelevant knowledge, if interesting theory. The chances you're going to ever need to perform this mate are minute, so why bother studying it when you could be studying something that could actually have a substantial positive impact on your game. Fundamental knowledge is something, well fundamental, i.e. necessary, foundational.. basic even. I have more synonyms if this is hard to follow. Unless you can actually profer an argument that this knowledge is in any significant sense necessary other than "but Capa knew how!", I'd say your just full of it and yourself. Ohh, another mean person disagreed with you. It must be because they're mean and have nothing to do with yourself. Teh interwebs are just a cruel cruel place, and oh so serious business ;)
Capablanca's argument, as I had stated, was that it teaches the student the value of those pieces and how they interact with one another.
I took the time to learn it, as he recommended, and I consider it fundamental knowledge, as he did. No tantrums, just substantiated belief.
No hard feelings on my end, but this is ridiculous. I prefer my chess to be fun.
Sorry for my pithiness then -- that's just what it sounded like to me (and possibly others given their previous comments) and I just get tired of people getting bent out of shape over silly things. I also may have some unresolved anger/agression issues from my last job, where I had to put up with waaay too much shit from a fat tantrum throwing Tunisian who had the security and emotional maturity of a spoiled eight year old child. Suffice it to say I've been in kinda a fighten' mood recently :)
Cheers to piece coordination then, I think we can all agree that that is a fundamental skill, and if that excercise helps you there then its study is certainly defensable. This doesn't mean it's going to be helpful to everyone (I think the implication that it is objectively fundamental in itself was what , or at least I, was disagreeing with), but saying it's an exemplar of a basic skill is entirely different (an exemplar of a fundamental skill should not be confused with the fundamental skill itself -- they are ontologically distinct and what holds true of one does not necessarily hold true of the other.) However, it should be noted that as an exemplar it derives it's value from the valued thing it exemplifies: thus its value is extrinsic (for the sake of something else), rather than intrinsic (for itself, in it's own right). In that case, piece coordination is the fundamental skill, and the KBN mating technique is a way to improve that skill, and as such valuable. Everyone satisfied with that conclusion I hope? If not I'm still looking for people to fight with :)
Capablanca's argument, as I had stated, was that it teaches the student the value of those pieces and how they interact with one another.
I took the time to learn it, as he recommended, and I consider it fundamental knowledge, as he did. No tantrums, just substantiated belief.
No hard feelings on my end, but this is ridiculous. I prefer my chess to be fun.
This is all fine. But then you must accept that the other point of view is valid, too. You consider it fundamental, some agree with you, others don't.
Taken from wikipedia:
Opinions differ as to whether or not a player should learn this checkmate procedure... Jeremy Silman includes the checkmate with two bishops but not the bishop plus knight checkmate because he has had it only once and his friend John Watson has never had it (Silman 2007:33,188). Silman says
"...mastering it would take a significant chunk of time. Should the chess hopeful really spend many of his precious hours he's put aside for chess study learning an endgame he will achieve (at most) only once or twice in his lifetime?"
In almost 40 years of tournament chess I have had the B+N ending only once and I did win it against a 2100 player. I practiced it daily against a bot on ICC until I could do it in under 2 minutes consistently. Now, I havent tried it in years and am not sure I could still do it. I agree with Silman that one's study time is much better spent in other areas of the game but it would be very embarrassing to get this ending and not be able to win it ! I feel much the same about the QvR ending as well.... oh and I have never had the 2 bishop ending . LOL
I think the QvR ending is much harder than B+N mate. I've spent 50x more time on QvR than B+N, and I'd say I could do B+N comfortably but QvR still takes a lot of thought.
Last year I saw GM Cheparinov ( Topalov's second ) unable to convert with Q v R against another GM in the thematic Ruy Lopez rapid event in Zafra Spain. Both GMs were very short of time with Cheparinov having less time than his opponent and he sacrificed the Q for the rook to draw the game to be sure he wouldnt lose on time. He then threw a bit of a tantrum by leaving the room in a huff without resetting the pieces.....
Is it possible to checkmate a King with only a King, Bishop and Knight. I would preferably like our GMs like Vishy, Spassky and Magnus Carlson or more of you GMs to help me out on this one. I've got arguments in my zone, its starting to stress me out and make me look bad. Chessmaster has got the solution but itsa more like a puzzle of GM advanced classes.