# SMOTHERED MATE

What is SMOTHERED MATE?          Smothered mate is a mate where your Knight/Bishop is checks the king has nowhere to move because all the pices are covering your/opponents king so much that it is a goner!!                                                          AMAZING RIGHT!!!???

The bishop isn’t needed to deliver mate as there’s 1. Nc7+ Kb8 2. Na6++ Ka8 (Kc8 is met with Qc7) 3. Qb8+ Rxb8 Then 4. Nc6#
MazeOfMoves wrote:

Why do all that funky stuff before 3. Qb8+?

He saying those are the moves if you don’t have the bishop. Without the bishop you still have mate by force.

No!!! (s)He said that 1. Nc7+ Kb8 2. Na6++ Ka8 and then Qb8+.

whites turn

mate in two

u are right!!

suryavarman123 wrote:

whites turn

mate in two

Take away the bishop and it’s mate in four.

MazeOfMoves wrote:
apotosaurus wrote:

No!!! (s)He said that 1. Nc7+ Kb8 2. Na6++ Ka8 and then Qb8+.

I see, we are making a hypothetical different position instead of commenting on the one at hand.

If it were black to move, black wouldn't need the rook.

People are commenting on the position at hand; they're saying the bishop isn't necessary. If the bishop weren't there, White could still force mate using the Knight and the Queen. This is a necessary point, because what if this pattern occurs in your game, but without the bishop? Would you figure it out over the board? You clearly weren't familiar with it, as post #7 demonstrates.

This should clear it up. It is possible to mate without the bishop. This simplified versions shows it. Most people miss the king taking the queen instead of the rook, and believe a bishop is necessary.

Thanks, Detective I wanted to post that earlier but I don’t know how to create those animations.

USArmyParatrooper wrote:

Thanks, Detective I wanted to post that earlier but I don’t know how to create those animations.

No problem

Qb8+ Rxb8 Nc7#

MazeOfMoves wrote:
CHEZ08 wrote:

Qb8+ Rxb8 Nc7#

They didn't like that answer 3 days ago,

It's not the answer we didn't like. Given the position presented, that's the correct answer. But the OP presented that position as instruction, and he failed to illustrate the full power (not to mention aesthetic beauty) of the smothered mate pattern. I'm going to take it one step further: Not only will I remove the bishop, but the queen is now also under attack at the start (and Black is threatening a checkmate of its own).

MazeOfMoves wrote:

"But the OP presented that position as instruction, and he failed to illustrate the full power (not to mention aesthetic beauty) of the smothered mate pattern."

There is no beauty in removing pieces. The puzzle as it stands is beautiful with the Qb8+, Rxb8, and Nc7#

There is no mention of how these pieces came to that position. If this was from a game, say Kasparov vs Karpov in the 1980s and the bishop didn't need to go to g3 (making it an extra move), then perhaps yea it would look "more beautiful".

However, I don't see any point in taking an original position (out of context, no mention of the game it came from) and then removing pieces making it seem like you have some pearl of wisdom.

If you want to teach the art of the knight, teach the art of the knight. Do it without the bishop to begin with. If you are just looking to impress people at a bar with this, then call it for what it is, not aesthetically beautiful.

You're either a troll or you're really, really dense. Tough call. Poe's Law at work.

BetweenTheWheels wrote:
MazeOfMoves wrote:
CHEZ08 wrote:

Qb8+ Rxb8 Nc7#

They didn't like that answer 3 days ago,

It's not the answer we didn't like. Given the position presented, that's the correct answer. But the OP presented that position as instruction, and he failed to illustrate the full power (not to mention aesthetic beauty) of the smothered mate pattern. I'm going to take it one step further: Not only will I remove the bishop, but the queen is now also under attack at the start (and Black is threatening a checkmate of its own).

I literally made one simplified edition a week ago...

DetectiveRams wrote:

I literally made one simplified edition a week ago...

I know. I acknowledged that when I said I was "taking it a step further."